UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4497

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRENCE BRANDON MABRY, a/k/a TJ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00485-FL-1)

Submitted: June 15, 2023 Decided: June 20, 2023

Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Mitchell G. Styers, BANZET, THOMPSON, STYERS & MAY, PLLC, 

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

David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4497 Doc: 26 Filed: 06/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrence Brandon Mabry pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to conspiracy to 

distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and heroin; six counts 

of distribution of cocaine; eight counts of distribution of cocaine base; possession with 

intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base; and possession of a firearm by a convicted 

felon. The district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 335 months’ 

imprisonment. On appeal, Mabry argues that the district court imposed a procedurally 

unreasonable sentence because it failed to (1) address his nonfrivolous arguments for a 

downward variance; (2) provide an individualized explanation for the sentence imposed; 

and (3) adequately consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. He also argues his sentence 

is substantively unreasonable because the chosen sentence is greater than necessary to 

achieve the sentencing goals of § 3553(a). We affirm. 

We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly 

outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see United States v. Blue, 877 

F.3d 513, 517 (4th Cir. 2017). To assess procedural reasonableness, we consider whether 

the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, 

adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, sufficiently explained the selected 

sentence, and addressed any nonfrivolous arguments for a different sentence. United 

States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). A “district court[] need not 

robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.” United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 

167, 174 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). The sentencing explanation 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4497 Doc: 26 Filed: 06/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
3

need not be extensive, but it must demonstrate that the district court had “a reasoned basis 

for exercising [its] own legal decision-making authority.” Provance, 944 F.3d at 218 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

“If the sentence is procedurally sound, we then consider the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.” 

United States v. McCain, 974 F.3d 506, 515 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). A sentence is presumptively substantively reasonable if it “is within or below a 

properly calculated Guidelines range,” and this “presumption can only be rebutted by 

showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). 

Mabry argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district 

court failed to address why it rejected his request for a downward variance and failed to 

provide an individualized explanation for the chosen sentence. However, the district court 

explained that Mabry’s conduct was particularly egregious because he dealt drugs while in 

jail, which reflected his dangerousness and likelihood to recidivate. The court also 

discussed Mabry’s leadership role, criminal history, difficult childhood, and employment 

history. The court adequately considered Mabry’s nonfrivolous arguments and the relevant 

§ 3553(a) factors, including his personal characteristics, criminal history, the seriousness 

of his offenses, the need for deterrence, and the need to protect the public. The court’s 

explanation was sufficient to support the imposition of Mabry’s within-Guidelines 

sentence, and Mabry does not overcome the presumption of reasonableness afforded to it. 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4497 Doc: 26 Filed: 06/20/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Mabry’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable, and we thus discern no 

abuse of discretion the district court’s imposition of the 335-month prison term. 

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: 22-4497 Doc: 26 Filed: 06/20/2023 Pg: 4 of 4