Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RASHAD JAMAL BLANCHARD

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-29 The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment imposing a 240-month prison sentence and five years of supervised release on Rashad Jamal Blanchard for possession with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The court reviewed the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), first assessing procedural reasonableness by confirming the district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range, considered all relevant factors, allowed allocution, and adequately explained the sentence. Regarding substantive reasonableness, the court held that Blanchard failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached to his below-Guidelines sentence, noting the district court’s valid reliance on the seriousness of the offense and Blanchard’s increasingly violent criminal history as he aged. Additionally, in accordance with *Anders v. California*, the court reviewed the entire record and found no meritorious grounds for appeal, while also determining there was no error under *United States v. Rogers* regarding a discrepancy between the written judgment and oral pronouncement on supervised release conditions. As a practical consequence, the conviction and sentence stand, and counsel is required to inform Blanchard in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court for further review. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.