UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4745

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JAMES EDWARD TYER, a/k/a James Edward Tyler, a/k/a Tyer 

Edward James, a/k/a Jay, a/k/a Tyler Edward James,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00043-CMH-2)

Submitted: January 30, 2012 Decided: February 6, 2012

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne D. Inge, LAW OFFICE OF WAYNE D. INGE, Roanoke, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Michael Edward Rich, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Tyer was convicted of numerous offenses related 

to a series of convenience store robberies that occurred in 

October 2007. He received an aggregate sentence of 300 months—

considerably above his advisory Guidelines range of 78-97 

months. We previously affirmed Tyer’s convictions but vacated 

his sentence because the district court failed to make the 

individualized assessment required by Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38 (2007). United States v. Monroe, 396 F. App’x 33 (4th 

Cir. 2010) (No. 08-5050). Tyer now appeals the 300-month term 

of imprisonment imposed at resentencing. We affirm. 

I

At Tyer’s resentencing, defense counsel requested a 

sentence within the advisory Guidelines range based on Tyer’s 

difficult childhood and the fact that Tyer did not physically 

assault any of the robbery victims. The court rejected this 

request, finding that the nature and circumstances of the case 

warranted a “substantial increase” above the Guidelines range. 

In this regard, the court mentioned the number of robberies and

“the fact that this defendant carried a shotgun with him and had 

the ammunition right at the side ready, which enabled the 

robberies and the assaults to go forward.” The court 

specifically found that these circumstances, coupled with the 
3

need to protect the public and to deter Tyer and others from 

similar conduct, outweighed his relatively young age and 

difficult background. 

II

After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we 

review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an 

abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

at 51. We vacated the sentence originally imposed because the 

district court committed procedural error when it failed “to 

adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation 

for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” See Gall, 552 

U.S. at 51.

In evaluating a district court’s explanation for the 

sentence imposed, we have held that, although a district court 

must consider the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing

factors and explain the sentence, it need not explicitly refer

to § 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the record. United 

States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). However, 

the district court “must make an individualized assessment based 

on the facts presented,” and apply the “relevant § 3553(a) 

factors to the specific circumstances of the case before it.” 

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). The district 
4

court must also “state in open court the particular reasons 

supporting its chosen sentence” and “set forth enough to 

satisfy” us that it has “considered the parties’ arguments and 

has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal 

decisionmaking authority.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). In other words, the reasons articulated by 

the district court need not be “couched in the precise language 

of § 3553(a),” as long as the reasons “can be matched to a 

factor appropriate for consideration under that statute and 

[are] clearly tied to [the defendant’s] particular situation.” 

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 658 (4th Cir. 2007).

Tyer contends that the district court did not 

acknowledge his contention that a less severe sentence was 

warranted because, unlike codefendant Monroe, he did not assault 

any of the robbery victims. To the contrary, the court 

implicitly rejected this argument when it found that, by 

carrying a shotgun with ammunition at the side, Tyer enabled the 

robberies and assaults. Tyer also argues that the district 

court did not consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) when imposing 

sentence, claiming that the explanation given by the court for 

the selected sentence “could apply to any series of armed 

robberies.” Especially in light of the court’s statement about 

the number of robberies, the shotgun and the ammunition, it is 
5

clear that the court’s explanation of the sentence addressed 

Tyer’s conduct, not armed robberies in general. 

We conclude that the court adequately explained its 

reasons for the variant sentence and performed an appropriate 

individualized assessment. Further, the sentence is 

procedurally and substantively reasonable. 

III

We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED