UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-4217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LADARRIUS O’BRIAN WALKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cr-00239-TDS-1)

Submitted: November 16, 2017 Decided: December 6, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Seth A. Neyhart, STARK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, John M. Alsup, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ladarrius O’Brian Walker appeals his 90-month prison sentence after pleading 

guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon. The district court sentenced him above his 

advisory Guidelines range of 63 to 78 months. On appeal, Walker raises the issue of 

whether his variance sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

“We review the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) using an 

abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of ‘whether [the sentence is] inside, just outside, 

or significantly outside the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 

111 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). We “must 

first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as 

failing to . . . adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any 

deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If the sentence is 

procedurally reasonable, we consider its substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into 

account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the 

Guidelines range.” Id. If the sentence is outside the Guidelines range, we “may consider 

the extent of the deviation, but must give due deference to the district court’s decision 

that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id. 

The district court “must make an individualized assessment based on the facts 

presented when imposing a sentence, apply[ing] the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the 

specific circumstances of the case and the defendant, and must state in open court the 

particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence.” Lymas, 781 F.3d at 113 (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). “In imposing a variance sentence, the district 
3

court must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is 

significantly compelling to support the degree of the variance.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Although “[w]e must defer to the district court and affirm a 

reasonable sentence, even if we would have imposed something different,” we will vacate 

a variance sentence if the district court’s “stated reasoning is inadequate or if it relies on 

improper factors.” United States v. Bolton, 858 F.3d 905, 915 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in sentencing Walker, and his sentence is substantively reasonable. Taking 

into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of the variance, the 

district court provided adequate reasoning for its sentence and did not rely on improper 

factors. We therefore give due deference to the district court’s decision. 

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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED