UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-5241

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

ROGER MIKEL SMALLWOOD, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, 

District Judge. (5:07-cr-00065-sgw-1) 

Submitted: August 31, 2009 Decided: September 18, 2009 

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Fay F. Spence, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, United States Attorney, Jeb T. 

Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Roger Mikel Smallwood pled guilty to conspiracy to 

distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or 

more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), 

and was sentenced to 135 months in prison, well below the 

advisory guidelines range of 188 to 235 months. Smallwood 

appeals, arguing that his variance sentence is unreasonable. 

Finding no error, we affirm. 

 When determining a sentence, the district court must 

calculate the appropriate advisory guidelines range and consider 

it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, , 128 

S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). Appellate review of a district court’s 

imposition of a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or 

significantly outside the [g]uidelines range,” is for abuse of 

discretion. Id. at 591. In imposing a variance sentence, the 

district court “must consider the extent of the deviation and 

ensure that the justification is significantly compelling to 

support the degree of the variance. . . . [I]t [is] 

uncontroversial that a major departure should be supported by a 

more significant justification than a minor one.” Id. at 597. 

 The district court followed the necessary procedural 

steps in sentencing Smallwood, appropriately treating the 

guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the 

2 
3 

applicable guidelines range, performing an individualized 

assessment of the § 3553(a) factors to the facts of the case, 

and stating in open court the reasons for the sentence. United 

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

argued for a variance sentence and received one. The court 

articulated its reasons for the variance--the delay in 

prosecution, the sentences of Smallwood’s co-defendants, and 

Smallwood’s rehabilitative efforts--and weighed these factors 

against the seriousness of the offense, the large quantity of 

drugs foreseeable to Smallwood, and his role in the conspiracy. 

We conclude the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s judgment. 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