UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4235

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DAVID JACKSON, JR.,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. 

(1:10-cr-00374-MBS-1)

Submitted: July 15, 2011 Decided: August 26, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United 

States Attorney, Robert C. Jendron, Jr., Assistant United States 

Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Jackson, Jr., appeals his conviction and 

seventy-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to one count 

of unarmed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) 

(2006). Jackson’s sole argument on appeal is that the district 

court failed to set forth sufficient reasons to establish it 

made an individualized assessment before imposing his sentence, 

in light of the relevant 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & 

Supp. 2010) factors and the reasons discussed in Jackson’s 

motion for a below-Guidelines sentence. We affirm the district 

court’s judgment.

Because Jackson requested a sentence below his 

Guidelines range, his claim was properly preserved, and this 

court reviews it for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion 

standard, reversing “unless . . . the error was harmless.” 

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010) 

(“By drawing arguments from § 3553 for a sentence different than 

the one ultimately imposed, an aggrieved party sufficiently 

alerts the district court of its responsibility to render an 

individualized explanation addressing those arguments, and thus 

preserves its claim.”).

In evaluating the sentencing court’s explanation of a 

selected sentence, we have consistently held that while a 

district court must consider the statutory factors and explain 
3

its sentence, it need not explicitly discuss every factor on the 

record, particularly when the court imposes a sentence within a 

properly calculated Guidelines range. See United States v. 

Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). But, at the same 

time, the district court “must make an individualized assessment 

based on the facts presented.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 50 (2007). The district court must state the individualized 

reasons that justify the sentence, even when sentencing a 

defendant within the Guidelines range. Rita v. United States, 

551 U.S. 338, 356–57 (2007). 

In United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir.

2009), we held that while the individualized assessment of each 

defendant need not be elaborate or lengthy, it must provide a 

rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and be 

adequate to permit appellate review. 564 F.3d at 330. Thus, a 

conclusory statement that a specific sentence is the proper one 

does not satisfy the district court’s responsibilities. Id. at 

328–29. In addition, we cannot presume that the district court 

adopted the arguments of one of the parties while imposing 

sentence; an appellate court may not guess at the district 

court's rationale. Id. at 329–30. This court may, however,

look to the district court’s lengthy discussion with, and 

questioning of, defense counsel as evidence that the district 

court understood the defendant’s arguments for a reduced 
4

sentence and had reasons for rejecting those arguments. See

Rita, 551 U.S. at 344-45, 358-59. 

In this case, the district court made clear during 

Jackson’s sentencing hearing that it considered counsel’s 

arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence, explicitly stating 

that it had considered counsel’s arguments and making clear from 

questions posed to the probation officer and defense counsel 

throughout the hearing that it considered counsel’s arguments. 

The district court also sufficiently explained the reasons for 

Jackson’s seventy-month sentence, explicitly noting that it 

adopted the presentence investigation report’s findings as the 

reasons for Jackson’s sentence, and citing several § 3553(a) 

factors it found relevant, including the seriousness of 

Jackson’s offense, the need to deter him from criminal conduct 

and provide him with necessary drug counseling and mental health 

treatment, and to provide restitution to the financial 

institution he robbed. 

Because the sentencing transcript makes clear that the 

district court “considered counsel’s arguments for a belowGuidelines sentence but had reasoned bases for exercising its 

own legal decisionmaking authority” to impose a sentence at the 

bottom of Jackson’s Guidelines range, United States v. Engle, 

592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir.) (quoting Rita v. United States, 

551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 165 (2010),
5

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