UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4347

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MALCOLM XAVIER GREEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-4468

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANDRE ANTOINE WALKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:15-cr-00526-RDB-2; 1:15-cr-00526-RDB-1)

Submitted: March 28, 2017 Decided: April 5, 2017

Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ruth Vernet, Rockville, Maryland; James Wyda, Federal Public 

Defender, Meghan Skelton, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, 

Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellants. Rod J. Rosenstein, United 

States Attorney, Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Malcolm Xavier Green and Andre Antoine Walker appeal their 

convictions and sentences following their guilty pleas for 

conspiracy to commit bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 371 (2012), bank robbery and armed bank robbery, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(a), (d) (2012), and using, carrying, and 

brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in 

violation* of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012). We 

affirm.

Green and Walker challenge their firearm convictions on the 

basis that armed bank robbery does not qualify as a crime of 

violence. However, we recently addressed this issue in United 

States v. McNeal, 818 F.3d 141 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. 

Ct. 164 (2016), holding that armed bank robbery is, in fact, a 

crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) (2012). Id. at 

157. Thus, we reject this claim.

Green and Walker also contend that their sentences were 

procedurally unreasonable because the district court ignored 

their nonfrivolous arguments for lighter sentences. We review a 

sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52

 * Both Appellants preserved the right to appeal this issue 

with conditional guilty pleas. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2).
4

(2007). “When rendering a sentence, the district court must 

make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented,” 

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

(emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted), and “must 

adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful 

appellate review and to promote the perception of fair 

sentencing.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. An extensive explanation is 

not required as long as we are satisfied “that the district 

court has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned 

basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.” 

United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010)

(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Our review of the sentencing hearings confirms that the 

district court properly considered the arguments presented by 

Green and Walker. The court balanced evidence of their

backgrounds and personal characteristics against the serious 

danger posed by a crime spree in which Green and Walker

committed four bank robberies in less than one month. We 

therefore find no abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district court. 

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