UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4281

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY SERING,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. 

(1:13-cr-00153-ELH-1)

Submitted: December 22, 2014 Decided: January 7, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States 

Attorney, A. David Copperthite, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Sering appeals the 135-month sentence imposed 

by the district court following his guilty plea to conspiracy to 

interfere with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1951 (2012). On appeal, Sering contends that his sentence is 

both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Finding no 

error, we affirm. 

Because Sering argued for a sentence different than 

the sentence imposed by the district court, we review for 

reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. United 

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

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). 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) (2012) factors, or failing to 

adequately explain the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 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 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 
3

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 citation and footnote 

omitted)). 

We conclude that the district court’s sentence is 

procedurally reasonable. Our review of the sentencing hearing 

transcript reveals that the district court considered the 

§ 3553(a) factors in finding that a within-Guidelines sentence 

was appropriate and provided an adequate explanation for the 

sentence imposed. Further, it is apparent from the transcript 

that the court did not ignore or reject Sering’s mitigating 

arguments. 

Once we have determined that the district court 

committed no procedural error, we consider the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the 

totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The 

sentence imposed “must be sufficient, but not greater than 

necessary,” to satisfy the purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). If the sentence imposed is within the appropriate 

Guidelines range, we consider it presumptively reasonable. 

United States v. Yooho Weon, 722 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013). 

The presumption may be rebutted by a showing “that the sentence 

is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” 
4

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 

2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the district court recognized the necessity to 

impose a sentence that was sufficient but not greater than 

necessary to serve the purposes of sentencing, and it balanced 

Sering’s personal circumstances with the other § 3553(a) factors 

to arrive at the 135-month sentence. Given the district court’s 

broad discretion in balancing the § 3553(a) factors, see United 

States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011), we 

conclude that Sering has not overcome the presumption of 

reasonableness afforded to the within-Guidelines sentence. 

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