Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-04183/USCOURTS-ca4-24-04183-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Montie Krishun Brewer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4183

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v.

MONTIE KRISHUN BREWER, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:23-cr-00227-TDS-1) 

Submitted: December 11, 2024 Decided: January 13, 2025

Before AGEE and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant 

Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, 

Craig M. Principe, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4183 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 1 of 5
2

PER CURIAM: 

Montie Krishun Brewer pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). The district court sentenced Brewer to 

57 months’ imprisonment, at the low end of his 57- to 71-month advisory Sentencing 

Guidelines range. On appeal, Brewer challenges his sentence as both procedurally and 

substantively unreasonable. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a “deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 52 (2007). In doing so, we first 

consider whether the sentencing court committed “significant procedural error,” including 

improperly calculating the advisory Guidelines range, failing to sufficiently consider the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and failing to adequately explain the sentence imposed. Id. at 

51; see United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020). Additionally, “a district 

court must address or consider all non-frivolous reasons presented for imposing a different 

sentence and explain why [it] has rejected those arguments.” United States v. Ross, 912 

F.3d 740, 744 (4th Cir. 2019). 

If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, we then consider its substantive 

reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances. Nance, 957 F.3d at 212. The 

sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the 

purposes” of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We presume on appeal that a sentence 

within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines range is substantively reasonable, and the 

defendant bears the burden to “rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sentence 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4183 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 2 of 5
3

is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes–

Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Brewer first contends that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the 

district court failed to adequately consider his nonfrivolous argument for a downwardvariant sentence—that his unlawful possession of a firearm was motivated by his fear of 

being shot a second time after previously being a victim of gun violence—and failed to 

explain why it rejected that argument. Upon review, we find Brewer’s within-Guidelinesrange sentence to be procedurally reasonable. The district court considered the § 3553(a) 

factors and directly addressed and rejected Brewer’s argument that he possessed the gun 

due to his extreme fear of being shot. The court found that, even accepting as true all the 

facts surrounding Brewer’s prior shooting, he had been warned that he was not legally 

permitted to possess a firearm and did so anyway. The court also expressed doubt as to the 

credibility of Brewer’s mitigation argument, finding that, under the circumstances, he did 

not appear to have possessed the firearm merely for protection from gun violence, but to 

continue engaging in a criminal lifestyle. The court also emphasized Brewer’s criminal 

history involving drugs and firearms offenses. We conclude that the district court 

sufficiently considered Brewer’s argument and provided an adequate explanation for 

rejecting it. 

Brewer also challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that 

the district court erred by relying on an improper sentencing factor—that Brewer’s prior 

conviction for voluntary manslaughter may have been gang related—without evidentiary 

support for its conclusion. Since Brewer did not raise this issue in the district court, we 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4183 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 3 of 5
4

review it only for plain error. See United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 669 (4th Cir. 

2020); United States v. Hargrove, 625 F.3d 170, 183-84 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that plain 

error is proper standard of review for claim, raised for first time on appeal, that district 

court committed substantive error by considering improper sentencing factor). To 

demonstrate plain error, Brewer must show “(1) that the trial court erred, (2) that the error 

is clear and obvious, and (3) that the error affected his substantial rights.” Fowler, 948 

F.3d at 669 (internal quotation marks omitted). If he does so, we will exercise our 

discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (cleaned up). 

We have reviewed the record and do not discern error, plain or otherwise. Brewer’s 

presentence report contained information regarding his gang affiliation with the “Bloods,”

which the court appropriately considered; the presentence report also described various 

photographs of Brewer with known members of the “Bloods” gang, one of whom was 

Brewer’s codefendant in the voluntary manslaughter case. Moreover, the court made the 

contested statement as part of its discussion of Brewer’s gang affiliation generally and the 

negative impact it had on his life; the court then stated that the voluntary manslaughter 

offense also may have been gang related, but immediately acknowledged that it did not 

know whether that was the case. Finally, in explaining Brewer’s sentence, the court relied 

on numerous factors unrelated to the manslaughter case, including the circumstances of the 

instant offense, in which Brewer resisted officers prior to his arrest; his criminal history, 

which included arrests, convictions, and probation violations for drug and firearms

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4183 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 4 of 5
5

offenses; his continued and apparent disregard for the law; and the need to deter his future 

criminal conduct and protect the public. 

We therefore conclude that Brewer’s sentence is both procedurally and 

substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4183 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 5 of 5