UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4256

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRAVIS LAVERLEE CLARK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00170-JAB-1)

Submitted: May 24, 2010 Decided: June 17, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, 

Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States 

Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Travis Laverlee Clark pled guilty to possession with 

intent to distribute 15.7 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 

21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2009). 

At sentencing, defense counsel argued for a variant sentence 

below the guidelines range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment, 

citing the sentencing disparities between crack and powder 

cocaine. After counsel’s arguments and Clark’s allocution, the 

district court sentenced Clark to 200 months’ imprisonment. The 

court, however, did not specifically discuss the applicability 

of any 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009) factors or

Clark’s sentencing disparity argument, or otherwise explain its 

rationale supporting the chosen sentence. Clark appeals his 

sentence.

On appeal, Clark argues his sentence is unreasonable 

because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 

§ 3553(a) in light of recent determinations by the Justice 

Department and House Judiciary Committee that the sentencing 

disparity between crack and powder cocaine should be eliminated. 

Finding the sentence procedurally unreasonable, we vacate the 

sentence and remand for resentencing.

We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse 

of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). This requires consideration of both the procedural and 
3

substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. at 51; see also

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). 

Properly preserved claims of procedural error are subject to 

harmless error review. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 

546 (4th Cir. 2010); Lynn, 592 F.3d at 576. If the sentence is 

free of significant procedural error, the appellate court 

reviews the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Lynn, 

592 F.3d at 575; United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th 

Cir. 2007).

After determining whether the district court properly 

calculated the defendant’s advisory guideline range, we must 

decide if the sentence imposed was procedurally reasonable. 

This determination involves deciding whether the district court 

considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed the arguments 

presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the 

selected sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575-76; see United 

States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding 

that, while the “individualized assessment need not be elaborate 

or lengthy . . . it must provide a rationale tailored to the 

particular case . . . and [be] adequate to permit meaningful 

appellate review”). The district court’s explanation must be 

sufficient to satisfy us that it “has considered the parties’ 

arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal 
4

decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 

356 (2007).

By raising the issue below, Clark properly preserved 

review of his claim that his sentence is unreasonable based on 

sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine. 

Because Clark argued for a sentence different from the one 

ultimately imposed, the district court had a responsibility to 

render an individualized explanation addressing his arguments. 

Thompson, 595 F.3d at 546; Lynn, 592 F.3d at 578.

We find the sentence imposed is not procedurally 

reasonable because the district court failed to address Clark’s 

sentencing disparity argument, to explain its individualized 

assessment of the applicable § 3553(a) factors considered in 

imposing the chosen sentence, or to articulate why it rejected 

Clark’s argument for a below guidelines sentence. As a result, 

we are simply unable to gauge whether the district court

considered the parties’ arguments and the applicable sentencing 

factors and had a reasoned basis for its decision. Thus, this 

court cannot determine whether the sentence was greater than 

necessary or created an unwarranted sentencing disparity, as 

Clark contends. Therefore, we find that the district court 

abused its discretion and that the procedural error was not 

harmless under Lynn and Thompson.
5

Accordingly, we vacate Clark’s sentence and remand for 

resentencing. We decline to review the propriety of Clark’s 

disparity argument until the district court provides an adequate 

basis for meaningful appellate review. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED