UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-4325

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GEORGE MARSHALL LOCKHART, a/k/a G-Ride, a/k/a G-Rod, a/k/a Real,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:19-cr-00201-1)

Submitted: January 27, 2021 Decided: February 5, 2021

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wesley P. Page, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. Michael B. Stuart, United States Attorney, Charleston, West 

Virginia, Stephanie S. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

George Marshall Lockhart pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin and 

fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). At sentencing, Lockhart requested a 

downward variance, which the district court denied. The district court sentenced him to 96 

months in prison, a sentence within the Sentencing Guidelines range established by the 

court. On appeal, Lockhart challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm. 

This court reviews a criminal sentence imposed by a district court for 

reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007). This review entails consideration of both the procedural and 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In determining procedural 

reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s 

advisory Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate 

sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the 

selected sentence. Id. at 49-51.

If there is no procedural error, we then assess the substantive reasonableness of the 

sentence. Id. at 51. Substantive reasonableness review considers “the totality of the 

circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that 

the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. 

Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 176 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 141 

S. Ct. 383 (2020). “Any sentence that is within . . . a properly calculated Guidelines range 

is presumptively reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the 
3

sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United 

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). “[D]istrict courts 

have extremely broad discretion when determining the weight to be given each of the 

§ 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 215 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal 

quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __, No. 20-5825, 2020 WL 6385951 (U.S. 

Nov. 20, 2020).

While Lockhart makes no more than a conclusory allegation that the district court 

committed procedural error, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence 

is procedurally sound. See United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 215, 218 (4th Cir. 

2019) (holding that “we review the sentence for procedural reasonableness before

addressing whether it is substantively reasonable”). Lockhart contends that his sentence is 

substantively unreasonable, but his assertions amount to a disagreement with the weight 

the district court gave each of the § 3553(a) factors. Lockhart has failed to overcome the 

presumption of reasonableness afforded to a sentence within the properly calculated

Guidelines range. 

Accordingly, we affirm the criminal 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