UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4043

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MAURICE RAYMOND JOHNSTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (4:07-cr-00071-F-1)

Submitted: November 22, 2010 Decided: December 20, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research 

and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, Eric D. Goulian, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Maurice Raymond Johnston appeals his sentence of 

eighty-seven months in prison after pleading guilty to 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). On appeal, 

he contends that the district court committed procedural error 

by failing to adequately explain its decision to reject his 

request for a within-Guidelines sentence and instead to impose a 

one-level upward departure to Johnston’s criminal history 

category because it under-represented Johnston’s criminal 

history. We affirm. 

This court reviews for abuse of discretion sentences 

imposed by a district court.∗

 ∗ The Government argues that Johnston waived this ground at 

sentencing, or else failed to preserve it. Review of the record 

belies this claim. Additionally, defense counsel’s arguments 

corresponded sufficiently with the statutory factors in 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(2) (2006) to preserve the issue of whether 

the district court adequately explained its sentence. See

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 581 (4th Cir. 2010). 

 Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007); United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). A sentence is 

procedurally unreasonable when a district court commits 

“significant procedural error,” including “failing to adequately 

explain the chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Thus, the 

sentencing court “‘must state in open court the particular 
3

reasons supporting its chosen sentence.’” United States v. 

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(c) (2006)). 

A district court’s explanation “need not be elaborate 

or lengthy.” Id. at 330. Instead, it need only show “‘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) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 

U.S. 338, 356 (2007)) (alterations in original), cert. denied, 

__ S. Ct. __, 2010 WL 2345029 (U.S. Oct. 4, 2010) (No. 09-1512). 

The court need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or discuss 

every factor on the record. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 

339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). An explanation is adequate when it 

“allow[s] for meaningful appellate review and . . . promote[s] 

the perception of fair sentencing.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. 

Johnston contends that his sentence must be vacated 

because the district court did not explain its reasons for 

rejecting his arguments in favor of a within-Guidelines 

sentence. The Government contends that no error occurred. Our 

review of the record convinces us the Government is correct. 

Both Johnston and his attorney offered reasons for the district 

court to impose a within-Guidelines sentence, including the 

nature and circumstances of Johnston’s offense and his history 
4

and characteristics. The district court responded to Johnston’s 

request with a recitation of Johnston’s criminal history, 

concluding “that the criminal history category of IV grossly 

under represents your propensity for violence and high risk to 

commit additional crimes.” (J.A. 84). The record demonstrates 

that the district court determined that Johnston’s history of 

violent and drug-related crimes and institutional offenses, 

particularly a 2001 conviction for discharging a shotgun into an 

occupied vehicle, outweighed any mitigating factors. We discern 

no basis to question the propriety of the court’s exercise of 

its discretion.

We therefore 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