UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4412

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SIDNEY ARNAZ BAKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:11-cr-00389-TDS-1)

Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: September 28, 2012

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, 

Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Stephen T. Inman, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sidney Arnaz Baker appeals his eight-month sentence 

following a guilty plea to theft of Government funds, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (2006). On appeal, Baker argues 

that the district court committed procedural error by failing to 

specifically address his argument regarding the need to avoid 

unwarranted sentencing disparities pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a)(6). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

Baker preserved his claim of error “[b]y drawing 

arguments from § 3553 for a sentence different than the one 

ultimately imposed.” United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 

(4th Cir. 2010). Therefore, any error must lead to reversal, 

“unless we conclude that the error was harmless.” Id. at 581. 

A district court commits procedural sentencing error by “failing 

to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, 

treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 

§ 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly 

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen 

sentence.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

“Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above, 

below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on the 

record an individualized assessment based on the particular 

facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 

325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 
3

“Where the defendant or prosecutor presents 

nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence than that 

set forth in the advisory Guidelines, a district judge should 

address the party’s arguments and explain why he has rejected 

those arguments.” Id. at 328 (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). “[A] district court’s explanation of its 

sentence need not be lengthy, but the court must offer some

‘individualized assessment’ justifying the sentence imposed and 

rejection of arguments for a higher or lower sentence based on 

§ 3553.” Lynn, 592 F.3d at 584 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50). 

However, “[t]o establish the reasonableness of a sentence, a 

district court need not explicitly discuss every § 3553(a) 

factor on the record.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 

345 (4th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

We conclude that the district court did not 

procedurally err in failing to address Baker’s argument 

regarding the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. 

Section 3553(a)(6) requires a sentencing court to consider “the 

need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants 

with similar records who have been found guilty of similar 

conduct.” In support of his argument for a below-Guidelines 

sentence of probation, Baker cited examples of two other 

defendants convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 641 who had received 
4

sentences of probation.∗ However, Baker failed to address the 

defendants’ criminal histories and the circumstances of their 

criminal conduct. 

The district court did not procedurally err in 

imposing the eight-month below-Guidelines sentence by failing to 

specifically address his sentencing disparity argument, as the 

court thoroughly explained its reasons for the sentence imposed. 

The court placed an individualized assessment on the record 

supporting the stated sentence, addressing the seriousness of 

Baker’s crime, the length of Baker’s criminal conduct, and the 

significant loss attributable to Baker, as well as Baker’s 

health, age, education, and community involvement. 

Accordingly, we deny as moot Baker’s motion to 

expedite decision and 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

 ∗ Contrary to Baker’s assertions, one of the defendants had, 

in fact, received a thirty-day intermittent sentence of 

imprisonment, in addition to probation.