UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-4012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER L. ESTEP,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:17-cr-00522-HMH-1)

Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: July 23, 2018

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua S. Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellant. Sherri A. Lydon, United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher L. Estep appeals from the 38-month sentence imposed after he 

pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting an unarmed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 2, 2113(a) (2012). Estep contends that his sentence is unreasonable, arguing that the 

district court failed to address nonfrivolous sentencing arguments and based its sentence 

on factors that the record did not support. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion 

standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). The court first reviews for 

significant procedural error, and if the sentence is free from such error, it then considers 

substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. Procedural error includes improperly calculating

the Sentencing Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines range as mandatory, failing to 

consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and failing to adequately explain the 

selected sentence. Id. To adequately explain the sentence, the district court must make 

an “individualized assessment” by applying the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the case’s 

specific circumstances. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). The 

individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, but it must be adequate to 

allow meaningful appellate review. Id. at 330. 

The court considered Estep’s request for a downward variance, but imposed the 

38-month, within-Guidelines sentence. The court reasoned that the facts of the case were 

typical of those contemplated by the Guidelines. The court stated that it had reviewed the 

§ 3553(a) factors, and pointed to Estep’s criminal history not counted in the Guidelines 

calculation that he had previous convictions for possession of a stolen check and 
3

possession of pipe bombs, that bank employees were put in fear during the robbery, and 

that Estep possessed inauthentic and potentially fraudulent identification documents 

when he was arrested. Although the court did not specifically address Estep’s health in 

its reasoning, it adopted the presentence report, which, as Estep points out, is included in 

depth in the PSR. The court also did not specifically respond to Estep’s culpability 

argument when imposing the sentence, but did state that the facts of the case were 

contemplated by the Guidelines. Based on the record, we conclude that the court did not 

procedurally err.

“Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is 

presumptively [substantively] reasonable. Such a 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) 

(citations omitted). Estep does not present sufficient evidence or argument to rebut the 

presumption of reasonableness applicable to his properly calculated within-Guidelines 

sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm the 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