UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4582

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICKY R. JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cr-00074-TSK-MJA-1)

Submitted: September 19, 2024 Decided: September 23, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Wheeling, West Virginia, Sarah E. Wagner, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4582 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Ricky R. Johnson appeals the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea 

to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 

924(a)(2). On appeal, Johnson argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because it creates an unwarranted sentencing disparity. Finding no error, we affirm.

“We review all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the 

[Sentencing] Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United 

States v. Barronette, 46 F.4th 177, 208 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

To be substantively reasonable, a sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than 

necessary,” to satisfy the goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In reviewing the 

substantive reasonableness of a sentence outside the Guidelines range, we “may consider 

the extent of the deviation, but must give due deference to the district court’s decision that 

the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

The district court calculated a Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months but opted to vary

upward, relying heavily on Johnson’s presentencing conduct. Prior to the sentencing 

hearing, Johnson successfully moved for release from custody so that he could complete 

inpatient treatment for substance abuse. But he left the program without authorization and 

absconded from supervision before eventually being arrested. This egregious breach of 

trust, coupled with Johnson’s lengthy and serious criminal history, drove the court’s 

decision to impose a substantial upward variance. 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4582 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

On appeal, Johnson contends that his 120-month sentence is out of step with the 

average sentences imposed for firearm offenses. This argument, however, ignores the 

factors that led to the district court’s sentencing decision, focusing instead on broad 

statistical averages. By contrast, the district court conducted an individualized assessment 

of Johnson’s circumstances and thoroughly explained why an above-average sentence was 

warranted. See United States v. Claybrooks, 90 F.4th 248, 257 (4th Cir. 2024) (stating that 

sentencing court must “provide an individualized assessment based on the facts before the 

court” (internal quotation marks omitted)). For these reasons, we reject Johnson’s 

challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4582 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 3 of 3