UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4176

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DARNELL ANTHONY YOUNG, a/k/a DJ Nelly Nell, a/k/a Nelly,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:06-cr-00491-WDQ-1)

Submitted: August 24, 2011 Decided: September 7, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary A. Ticknor, Elkridge, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. 

Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Tonya Kelly Kowitz, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Darnell Anthony Young of conspiracy 

to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and possession with intent 

to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) 

(2006), and the district court sentenced him to 136 months’ 

imprisonment. In Young’s first appeal, we affirmed Young’s 

conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded for 

resentencing. United States v. Young, 609 F.3d 348, 359 (4th 

Cir. 2010). On remand, the district court rejected Young’s 

arguments for a downward variance and sentenced Young to 188 

months’ imprisonment. Young again appeals, arguing that the 

district court’s sentence was procedurally unreasonable. 

Finding no error, we affirm. 

In reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the 

district court did not commit any “significant procedural 

error,” such as failing to properly calculate the applicable 

Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district 

court is not required to “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s 

every subsection.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 

(4th Cir. 2006). However, the district court “must place on the 

record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular 
3

facts of the case before it. This individualized assessment 

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

rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate 

to permit ‘meaningful appellate review.’” United States v. 

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 

U.S. at 50) (internal footnote omitted). 

“‘Where the defendant . . . presents nonfrivolous 

reasons for imposing a different sentence’ than that set forth 

in the advisory Guidelines, a district judge should address the 

party’s arguments and ‘explain why he has rejected those 

arguments.’” Id. at 328 (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 

U.S. 338, 357 (2007)). Upon review, we conclude that the 

district court adequately addressed Young’s nonfrivolous reasons 

for a downward variant sentence before rejecting them and did 

not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence at the bottom of

the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. See United States v. 

Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard 

of review for properly preserved procedural sentencing error);

see also Gall, 552 U.S. at 46. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment

sentencing Young to 188 months’ imprisonment. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
4

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED