UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-4722

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MURDOCK RAEFORD SHERROD,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:18-cr-00067-BR-1)

Submitted: May 31, 2019 Decided: June 13, 2019

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Murdock Raeford Sherrod appeals the 120-month sentence imposed after he 

pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012). The 

district court varied upward from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range based on 

Sherrod’s underrepresented criminal history and the likelihood that he would commit 

other crimes. On appeal, Sherrod maintains that the 120-month sentence, representing 

more than double the top of the applicable Guidelines range of 51 months, was 

substantively unreasonable. In particular, Sherrod argues that the court erred in basing 

the increased sentence in part on the nature and seriousness of the offense of conviction. 

Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the 

Guidelines range,” for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The court “must first ensure

that the district court committed no significant procedural error” in imposing the 

sentence, “such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, . . 

. failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [2012] factors, selecting a sentence based 

on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—

including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” United States v. 

Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 100 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). If 

the court finds no significant procedural error, it also must evaluate the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence, considering the totality of the circumstances. United 

States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). The sentence must be 
3

“sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the purposes of sentencing. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

“In reviewing a sentence outside the Guidelines range, we give due deference to 

the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the 

variance.” United States v. Zuk, 874 F.3d 398, 409 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). “We must defer to the district court and affirm a reasonable sentence, 

even if we would have imposed something different.” United States v. Washington, 743 

F.3d 938, 943-44 (4th Cir. 2014).

With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the upward variance sentence. 

The district court meaningfully considered and explained its sentence and properly 

applied the § 3553(a) factors. According the appropriate due deference to the sentencing 

court, we find no error. We therefore affirm the sentence imposed.

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