UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4482

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RASUL GATFORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 22-4487

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RASUL GATFORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:13-cr-00010-BO-2; 7:21-cr-00140-

BO-1)

Submitted: January 23, 2024 Decided: February 1, 2024

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4487 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 8
2

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

No. 22-4482, vacated and remanded; No. 22-4487, affirmed by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant 

Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. 

Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Logan W. Liles, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4487 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 8
3

PER CURIAM:

In separate appeals, Appellant Rasul Gatford challenges a criminal judgment, 

Appeal No. 22-4487, and a revocation judgment, Appeal No. 22-4482. The appeals have 

been consolidated. For the reasons that follow, in Appeal No. 22-4482, we vacate 

Gatford’s 14-month revocation sentence and remand for resentencing; in Appeal No. 22-

4487, we affirm the criminal judgment.

I.

While serving a term of supervised release for previous drug and firearm offenses, 

Gatford was arrested on new drug and firearm charges. The probation officer filed a 

petition in the district court asking the court to revoke Gatford’s supervised release based 

on his new criminal conduct. Gatford subsequently was charged in federal court and pled 

guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute cocaine 

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possession of a firearm by a felon, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).1

 

The district court held a joint hearing on the revocation petition and the sentencing 

on the new charges where the court revoked Gatford’s term of supervised release, 

sentenced Gatford to 60 months’ imprisonment for the drug and firearm offenses, and 

1 Section 924(a)(2) was amended and no longer provides the penalty for § 922(g) 

convictions. The new penalty provision in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8) sets forth a statutory 

maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for a § 922(g) offense. See Bipartisan Safer 

Communities Act, Pub. L. No. 117-159, § 12004(c), 136 Stat. 1313, 1329 (2022). The 15-

year statutory maximum does not apply here, however, because Gatford committed his 

offense before the June 25, 2022, amendment of the statute.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4487 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 8
4

imposed a 14-month consecutive term of imprisonment for the revocation sentence, 

resulting in an aggregate sentence of 74 months. Gatford noticed two appeals for (1) the 

new criminal offenses and (2) the revocation sentence.2

II.

Gatford argues that his revocation sentence was procedurally unreasonable. He 

notes that the district court imposed a sentence different from the one he requested but 

failed to offer any explanation why it rejected his request and his arguments in support of 

it.

During the joint sentencing/revocation hearing, the district court announced that 

Gatford’s Sentencing Guidelines range on his new convictions was “70 to 87 months on 

both counts” and that the policy statement range for the supervised release revocation

sentence was 30 to 37 months. The court invited counsel to present arguments as to an 

appropriate sentence asking, “What’s the package?”

Gatford’s counsel argued in favor of a 60-month downward variance sentence, 

contending that a below-Guidelines range sentence was “the appropriate result in this case 

as a package.” Gatford’s attorney presented several arguments in support of this sentence, 

emphasizing the small quantity of drugs involved in the offense, the sentencing disparity 

2 On appeal, Gatford has declined to challenge his convictions and 60-month 

sentence on the new charges, citing the appeal waiver in his written plea agreement. The 

Government has not sought to enforce the appeal waiver. Because Gatford’s opening brief 

does not challenge his convictions or sentence on the new criminal charges, Gatford has 

waived appellate review of the criminal judgment. See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC,

856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A party waives an argument by failing to present it in 

its opening brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4487 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/01/2024 Pg: 4 of 8
5

between cocaine and cocaine base offenses, and the fact that there was no evidence that the 

firearm was used during any drug transaction. The Government argued in favor of a 

sentence above the 70- to 87-month Guidelines range on the new criminal charges, 

contending that a 96-month upward departure or variance sentence was appropriate.

Without further discussion or explanation, the court announced Gatford’s sentence 

of 60 months on the new criminal charges, and “[o]n the revocation, I’ll impose a sentence 

of 14 months consecutive to the sentence on the new case.” On appeal, Gatford argues that 

the sentence imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release was procedurally 

unreasonable because the court failed to sufficiently explain the sentence and failed to 

address his arguments for a lesser sentence.

1.

We first address the standard of review. “[I]f a party repeats on appeal a claim of 

procedural sentencing error . . . [that] it has made before the district court, we review for 

abuse of discretion” and will reverse unless we conclude “that the error was harmless.” 

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010). For instance, if “an aggrieved 

party sufficiently alerts the district court of its responsibility to render an individualized 

explanation” by arguing “for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed,” the 

party sufficiently “preserves its claim.” Id. at 578. However, we review unpreserved nonstructural sentencing errors for plain error. Id. at 576-77.

The Government contends that Gatford’s sentencing arguments addressed only the 

sentence for the new criminal charges and that he did not request a specific sentence on the 

revocation. It therefore asserts that Gatford’s sentencing challenge should be reviewed for 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4487 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/01/2024 Pg: 5 of 8
6

plain error. Gatford argues that his argument in favor of a 60-month sentence was for an 

aggregate sentence for both the new criminal charges and the revocation and that he 

preserved his challenge to the reasonableness of the revocation sentence. 

While there is merit to both arguments, we discern from the record that it is more 

likely than not that the district court sought recommendations on the aggregate sentence 

for both the new charges and the revocation. Thus, we conclude that Gatford argued for a 

revocation sentence different from the sentence imposed and that he thereby preserved for 

appeal his claim of procedural sentencing error.

2.

Gatford argues that his revocation sentence was procedurally unreasonable because 

the district court failed to adequately justify the sentence imposed. “A district court has 

broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United 

States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). We “will affirm a revocation sentence 

if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. 

Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). In 

determining whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine 

whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Id. Only if we find 

the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable, must we decide whether it is 

“plainly” so. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating that a 

plainly unreasonable sentence is one in which the error is clear and obvious). In making 

this determination, we are guided by “the same procedural and substantive considerations 

that guide our review of original sentences,” but we take “a more deferential appellate 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4487 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/01/2024 Pg: 6 of 8
7

posture than we do when reviewing original sentences.” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 

370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

“A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately 

explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding 

Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United 

States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted); 

see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing sentencing factors applicable to revocation proceedings). 

“[A] revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if, in light of the totality of the 

circumstances, the court states an appropriate basis for concluding that the defendant 

should receive the sentence imposed.” Coston, 964 F.3d at 297 (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

“A court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as 

it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement 

of reasons for the sentence imposed.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 

(4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). An explanation is adequate if it permits 

this court to determine “that the sentencing court considered the applicable sentencing 

factors with regard to the particular defendant before it and also considered any potentially 

meritorious arguments raised by the parties with regard to sentencing.” United States v. 

Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199, 204 (4th Cir. 2018) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the sentencing transcript demonstrates that the district court did not 

address Gatford’s arguments and provided no explanation for the sentence imposed on the 

revocation of Gatford’s supervised release. Accordingly, we conclude that the district 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4487 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/01/2024 Pg: 7 of 8
8

court failed to “provide enough of an explanation to assure this Court that it considered the 

parties’ arguments and had some basis for choosing the imposed sentence.” Slappy, 872 

F.3d at 210. 

[A] district court, when imposing a revocation sentence, must address the 

parties’ nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a particular sentence, and if the 

court rejects those arguments, it must explain why in a detailed-enough 

manner that this Court can meaningfully consider the procedural 

reasonableness of the revocation sentence imposed. We continue to 

recognize that a court’s statement of reasons for imposing a revocation 

sentence need not be as specific as has been required for departing from a 

traditional guidelines range. But where a court entirely fails to mention a 

party’s nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a particular sentence, or where 

the court fails to provide at least some reason why those arguments are 

unpersuasive, even the relaxed requirements for revocation sentences are not 

satisfied.

Id. at 208–09 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Because the district court 

offered no explanation of Gatford’s revocation sentence, that sentence is procedurally 

unreasonable.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, in Appeal No. 22-4482, we vacate Gatford’s revocation 

sentence and remand for resentencing with instruction that the district court explain its 

basis for choosing whatever sentence it imposes. In Appeal No. 22-4487, we affirm the 

criminal 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.

No. 22-4482, VACATED AND REMANDED;

No. 22-4487, AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4487 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/01/2024 Pg: 8 of 8