UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4676

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

KRISSY LYNETTE ROBINSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00343-TDS-2)

Submitted: March 10, 2014 Decided: March 26, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, 

Rebecca Fitzpatrick, Special Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Krissy Lynette Robinson appeals from her twenty-four 

month sentence entered pursuant to her guilty plea to possession 

with intent to distribute cocaine base. On appeal, she contends 

that her sentence is both procedurally and substantively 

unreasonable because the court failed to consider all of her 

arguments for a more lenient sentence. We affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an 

abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 

335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we examine the sentence for 

“significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate 

(or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the 

Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] 

§ 3553(a) [2012] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly 

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen 

sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. When reviewing for 

substantive reasonableness, we presume on appeal that a sentence 

within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines range is 

reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 

2007); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007) 

(upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines 

sentence).
3

In explaining a sentence, the district court is not 

required to “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every 

subsection, particularly when imposing a within-Guidelines 

sentence.” United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir. 

2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court 

must provide sufficient explanation to “demonstrate that it 

‘considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis 

for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.’” 

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

(quoting Rita, 551 U.S. at 356). “The context surrounding a 

district court’s explanation may imbue it with enough content 

for [this court] to evaluate both whether the court considered 

the § 3553(a) factors and whether it did so properly.” United 

States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 381 (4th Cir. 2006).

As Robinson actually received the sentence that she 

requested at sentencing, the parties agree that the issue of 

whether the district court’s explanation of a sentence was 

sufficient is reviewed for plain error. See Lynn, 592 F.3d at 

578 (requiring a defendant to argue for a sentence other than 

that imposed in order to preserve claim of error). We conclude 

that the district court properly responded to Robinson’s 

sentencing arguments and thoroughly explained the chosen 

sentence. Although the court did not explicitly address each 

statement raised in Robinson’s counsel’s argument, the court 
4

clearly demonstrated that it had considered the entire case in 

detail. The court explained that it determined that a sentence 

at the low end of the advisory Guidelines range was appropriate 

by balancing the serious nature of the offense against 

Robinson’s lack of criminal history and relatively young age. 

The court’s explanation demonstrated a reasoned consideration of 

the § 3553 factors along with the advisory Guidelines range.

As such, Robinson cannot show plain error in the 

district court’s consideration and explanation of her sentence. 

She received the sentence she requested, and she makes no 

reasonable argument that further explanation by the district 

court would have resulted in the court’s conclusion that a lower 

sentence was more appropriate. Powell, 650 F.3d at 395 (holding 

that Powell failed to show plain error given that lack of 

explanation had no prejudicial affect on his sentence). 

Moreover, we find that Robinson has failed to overcome the 

presumption that her sentence at the low end of the advisory 

Guidelines range is substantively reasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. 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