UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7424

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ARTEMAS TYRELL ROBERTS, a/k/a Artimus Tyrell Roberts,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00173-NCT-1)

Submitted: October 29, 2021 Decided: January 14, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, First Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew G. T. Martin, United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, 

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Artemas Tyrell Roberts appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a 

sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 

132 Stat. 5194. The court found Roberts was eligible for a reduction but denied his motion 

in its discretion. On appeal, he contends the court abused its discretion. We affirm.

“Under § 404(b) of the First Step Act, sentencing courts may impose a reduced 

sentence as if section[s] 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 . . . were in effect at 

the time the covered offense was committed.” United States v. McDonald, 986 F.3d 402, 

408-09 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “To determine the 

sentence that the court would have imposed under the Fair Sentencing Act, the court must 

engage in a brief analysis that involves the recalculation of the Sentencing Guidelines in 

light of ‘intervening case law,’ and a brief reconsideration of the factors set forth in [18 

U.S.C.] § 3553(a).” United States v. Lancaster, 997 F.3d 171, 175 (4th Cir. 2021) (citing 

United States v. Collington, 995 F.3d 347, 355 (4th Cir. 2021); United States v. Chambers, 

956 F.3d 667, 672, 674 (4th Cir. 2020)). “And in considering the § 3553(a) factors, the 

court can take into account a defendant’s conduct after his initial sentencing.” Id. at 175. 

“Engaging in this analysis nonetheless leaves the court with much discretion, and 

the analysis is not intended to constitute a plenary resentencing.” Id. (citations omitted). 

“Moreover, the analysis is not intended to be a complete or new relitigation of Guidelines 

issues or the § 3553(a) factors.” Id. “Rather, the scope of the analysis is defined by the 

gaps left from the original sentencing to enable the court to determine what sentence it 

would have imposed under the Fair Sentencing Act in light of intervening circumstances.” 
3

Id. “If, after conducting the analysis, the court determines that the sentence would not be 

reduced, then no relief under the First Step Act is indicated.” Id.; see also Collington, 995 

F.3d at 358 (“courts retain broad authority to decide, following a resentencing analysis, 

that the originally imposed sentence remains appropriate under the Fair Sentencing Act.”).

We review a district court’s First Step Act § 404 proceedings for procedural and 

substantive reasonableness. Collington, 995 F.3d at 358-61. Procedural reasonableness 

requires the court “to consider a defendant’s arguments, give individual consideration to 

the defendant’s characteristics in light of the § 3553(a) factors, determine—following the 

Fair Sentencing Act—whether a given sentence remains appropriate in light of those 

factors, and adequately explain that decision.” Id. at 360 (citation omitted). “[S]ubstantive 

reasonableness requires a sentence to be justified under the totality of the circumstances, 

especially when there is a large deviation from the Guidelines range.” Id. at 360 (citation 

omitted). We presume that a sentence within or below the Guidelines range is substantively 

reasonable. United States v. Zelaya, 908 F.3d 920, 930 (4th Cir. 2018).

In evaluating the sufficiency of the district court’s explanation, we presume that the 

court considered relevant sentencing factors. Collington, 995 F.3d at 353 n.2; McDonald, 

986 F.3d at 410-11. We have concluded that a defendant rebuts the presumption, and an 

individualized explanation is required, when he has presented significant post-sentencing 

mitigation evidence and the district court’s failure to provide an individualized explanation 

renders us unable to provide meaningful review. United States v. Webb, 5 F.4th 495, 499 

(4th Cir. 2021); McDonald, 986 F.3d at 412; United States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 389, 396 

(4th Cir. 2019). “But that explanation requires only enough that we are not left ‘in the dark 
4

as to the reasons for’ the district court’s decision.” Webb, 5 F.4th at 499 (quoting Martin, 

916 F.3d at 398); see also Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1964 (2018) 

(“the sentencing judge need only ‘set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has 

considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal 

decisionmaking authority’”) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)). 

Roberts was convicted in 2011 of possession with intent to distribute 12.8 grams of 

cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and possession of firearms in 

furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). He was 

sentenced within his Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months under USSG § 4B1.1(c)(3), 

as a career offender with a § 924(c) conviction, to consecutive sentences of 234 months on 

his § 841 conviction and 60 months on his § 924(c) conviction, totaling 294 months in 

prison. On direct appeal, we denied his motion to remand for resentencing under the Fair 

Sentencing Act, noting he was sentenced based on his career offender status under USSG 

§ 4B1.1(c)(3), not his drug quantity, and “any change in the minimum mandatory sentence 

for possession with intent to distribute 12.8 grams of cocaine base would not affect 

Roberts’s sentence.” United States v. Roberts, 467 F. App’x 187, 189 (4th Cir. 2012).

After the First Step Act of 2018, Roberts moved for a sentence reduction under 

Section 404. The district court found that he was eligible for a reduction but declined to 

do so in its discretion “based on the information provided in the Memorandum from the 

U.S. Probation office, the briefing of the parties, and review of the record.” The court 

explained that although his statutory range on his § 841 conviction “changed from 5-40 

years to 0-20 years,” his “advisory guideline range remains 262-327 months,” since the 
5

range “is driven, not by the type or amount of any specific drug, but by his being a career 

offender who possessed a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense.” The 

court further explained it had selected his sentence in the middle of the range because it 

was “the least that addressed the § 3553(a) factors, including public safety and deterrence: 

a person with multiple convictions for violent acts and drug trafficking offenses was 

continuing in that business and possessing a number of semi-automatic weapons in 

furtherance of it”; and his “[p]ost-conviction behavior does not favor a reduction.” 

On appeal, Roberts points to our decision in United States v. Woodson, 962 F.3d 

812 (4th Cir. 2020), abrogated by Terry v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1858 (2021), and 

argues that the district court abused its discretion and committed procedural error “by not 

addressing the Woodson shift he specifically argued” and by denying a reduction in his 

prison sentence on his § 841 conviction. We have reviewed the record and conclude that 

Roberts has not rebutted the presumption that the court considered relevant sentencing 

factors in denying his motion, and the court did not err or abuse its discretion. As the court 

explained, it considered the parties’ briefs in reaching its decision; and it properly engaged 

in a brief reconsideration of the § 3553(a) factors, including Roberts’ post-sentencing 

conduct, before deciding his sentence remained appropriate under the Fair Sentencing Act.

We further conclude that the district court considered his arguments and adequately 

explained its decision. In Woodson, we held that “when the Fair Sentencing Act changed 

the quantities of crack cocaine to which Subsection 841(b)(1)(C) applies, it ‘modified’ the 

statutory penalties of that subsection for purposes of crack cocaine offenders within the 

meaning of the First Step Act.” Woodson, 962 F.3d at 817. In explaining our decision, we 
6

noted that when addressing a First Step Act § 404 motion in a case where the defendant’s 

statutory range had not changed, a district court may find the shift in the range of drug 

weights to which the relevant subsection applied, relative to the defendant’s drug quantity 

of conviction, relevant in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular offender.

Roberts contends the district court did not consider this “Woodson shift” in denying 

his motion. However, here, the statutory range for his § 841 conviction did in fact change, 

and the court specifically considered that fact when denying his motion. Moreover, as the 

court explained in rejecting his argument, and in contrast to Woodson, Roberts’ Guidelines 

range was “driven, not by the type or amount of any specific drug, but by his being a career 

offender who possessed a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense.”

Regardless of the statutory maximum for Roberts’ § 841 offense, his statutory range 

on his § 924(c) conviction was still life; and his total sentence as a career offender with a 

§ 924(c) conviction was apportioned among his counts of conviction. As the district court 

explained, it imposed a sentence in the middle of his advisory Guidelines range because it 

was “the least that addressed the § 3553(a) factors”; and his “[p]ost-conviction behavior 

does not favor a reduction.” The court therefore considered relevant sentencing factors.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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