UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LORENZO KEITH GOINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-01203-MBS-1)

Submitted: July 31, 2019 Decided: August 6, 2019

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S 

OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sherri A. Lydon, United States 

Attorney, Kathleen Michelle Stoughton, John David Rowell, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Keith Goins pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012), and the district court imposed a 57-month 

sentence, which was at the top of Goins’ properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range. 

On appeal, Goins contends that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable 

because the district court did not adequately explain its reasons for the sentence and failed 

to respond to Goins’ argument for a downward variance. For the following reasons, we 

affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails 

consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 

51. In assessing 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) (2012) factors, and 

sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. “[A] district court must address 

or consider all non-frivolous reasons presented for imposing a different sentence and 

explain why he has rejected those arguments.” United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 744 

(4th Cir. 2019) petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. June 13, 2019) (No. 18-9654). 

If there are no procedural errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of 

the sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. A 

sentence is presumptively reasonable if it is within or below the defendant’s Guidelines 

range, and this “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is 
3

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

Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

To the extent that the district court erred by an overly terse explanation for imposing 

a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range, any such error is harmless. See United 

States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 839 & n.2 (4th Cir. 2010). “For a procedural sentencing 

error to be harmless, the government must prove that the error did not have a substantial 

and injurious effect or influence on the result.” Ross, 912 F.3d at 745. 

Goins argued for a downward variance based on the nature and circumstances of the 

offense, his low risk of recidivism, and his family circumstances. The Government asked 

the district court to impose a sentence at the top of the Guidelines range to take account of 

the fact that, after his arrest, Goins repeatedly and explicitly threatened to shoot and kill 

the arresting officers. After the Government played portions of a video that showed Goins 

making these threats, the district court explained that it was imposing a 57-month sentence 

in light of the Guidelines range and having considered the statutory sentencing factors. 

Although the district court did not address any specific factor, we have reviewed the record 

and are confident that the district court considered and rejected Goins’ arguments for a 

lower sentence. See Boulware, 604 F.3d at 839. Any procedural error is therefore 

harmless. 

While Goins argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, nothing in the 

record rebuts the presumption of reasonableness attached to Goins’ within-Guidelines 

sentence. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral 
4

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