UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4277

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARC ASHLEY BARNES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:10-cr-00055-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted: October 2, 2012 Decided: October 11, 2012

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henderson Hill, Executive Director, Joshua B. Carpenter, 

Assistant Federal Defender, Asheville, North Carolina, Ann L. 

Hester, Assistant Federal Defender, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, 

Richard Lee Edwards, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marc Ashley Barnes pled guilty without a plea 

agreement to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm and 

ammunition by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) 

(2006), and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. Barnes’ 

presentence investigation report determined that a crossreference to the kidnapping Guideline was appropriate. Although 

Barnes objected to the Guideline’s application, the district 

court overruled Barnes’ objection. Barnes’ sole argument is 

that the district court committed procedural sentencing error 

when it allegedly failed to make factual findings on each 

element necessary for the cross-reference’s application. 

Finding no error, we affirm.

After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), 

this court reviews a sentence for reasonableness. Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this 

review requires the court to ensure that the district court 

committed no significant procedural error. United States v. 

Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors 

include “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the 

Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing 

to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on 

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the 
3

chosen sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from 

the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

“[I]f a party repeats on appeal a claim of procedural 

sentencing error . . . which it has made before the district 

court, we review for abuse of discretion” and will reverse 

unless the court can conclude “that the error was harmless.” 

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

However, we review unpreserved non-structural sentencing errors 

for plain error. Id. at 576-77. 

Although the Government urges us to review Barnes’ 

assignment of error for plain error, we find that the district 

court committed no error, plain or otherwise, when it provided 

its rationale for applying the cross-reference to the kidnapping 

Guideline. Admittedly, as part of this court’s review of the 

procedural reasonableness of a particular sentence, we have 

stressed the importance of an adequate explanation for a 

sentencing decision. See United States v. Wilkinson, 590 F.3d 

259, 269 (4th Cir. 2010) (observing that a sentencing court must 

provide “a sufficient explanation of its rationale” in making 

factual findings to support its calculation of a defendant’s 

Guidelines range); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 

(4th Cir. 2009) (holding that a sentencing court is obliged to 

“place on the record an individualized assessment based on the 
4

particular facts of the case before it”) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

An adequate explanation of such a rationale not only 

“allows for meaningful appellate review, but it also promotes 

the perception of fair sentencing.” Carter, 564 F.3d at 328 

(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Thus, as 

Barnes correctly asserts, we require a district court to make 

factual findings necessary to justify application of a 

Guidelines provision, and its failure to do so may require 

vacatur of a resulting sentence. See United States v. Llamas, 

599 F.3d 381, 388-90 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Chandia, 

514 F.3d 365, 376 (4th Cir. 2008))). We have reviewed the 

record and have considered the parties’ arguments and conclude 

that the district court adequately explained its rationale for 

overruling Barnes’ objection to application of the kidnapping 

Guideline. 

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