UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4394

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEFFERY ALLEN MCCURDY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (2:21-cr-00014-TSK-MJA-1)

Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Elizabeth B. Gross, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William 

Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Stephen Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4394 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffery Allen McCurdy appeals his 37-month sentence for possession of a firearm 

by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), challenging only the adequacy of the district 

court’s response to his sentencing arguments. We affirm.

We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Where, as here, the defendant 

“presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a sentence outside the [Sentencing] 

Guidelines [range], the sentencing judge must address or consider those arguments and 

explain why he has rejected them.” United States v. Powers, 40 F.4th 129, 137 (4th Cir. 

2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). Critically, though, “[a]ppellate review is not a 

game of ‘Gotcha!’ where we tally up the number of distinguishable arguments a defendant 

mentioned in the district court and then comb the sentencing transcript for proof the district 

court mentioned each one by name.” Id. “Rather, when a district court addresses a 

defendant’s central thesis, it need not address separately every specific claim made in 

support.” Id. (cleaned up).

Contrary to McCurdy’s argument on appeal, our review of the sentencing transcript 

confirms that the district court sufficiently responded to McCurdy’s claims based on his 

struggles with alcohol abuse and mental health, his disadvantaged childhood, and his 

allegedly overstated criminal history category. Furthermore, the court made abundantly 

clear that the most important sentencing factor was the seriousness of the offense—during 

which McCurdy recklessly threatened a tow-truck driver with a shotgun—thus eliminating 

any doubt as to why the court found McCurdy’s mitigation arguments unpersuasive. See 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4394 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

United States v. Lester, 985 F.3d 377, 388 (4th Cir. 2021) (“[W]e do not evaluate a court’s 

sentencing statements in a vacuum, but pay attention to the context surrounding a district 

court’s explanation in reviewing whether non-frivolous arguments are addressed or 

considered by a sentencing judge.” (cleaned up)).

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: 22-4394 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 3