UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4739

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIE ALLEN, II,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:22-cr-00021-RJC-DCK-1)

Submitted: January 25, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024

Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: John G. Baker, Federal Public Defender, Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal 

Public Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Elizabeth 

M. Greenough, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4739 Doc: 34 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 5
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie Allen, II, pleaded guilty, without a written plea agreement, to being a 

convicted felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The 

district court sentenced Allen to 54 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Allen argues that 

his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the court failed to address his mitigating 

arguments at sentencing. We affirm.

We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” United States v. Williams, 5 F.4th 500, 505 (4th Cir. 2021). “A 

sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court commits a significant procedural 

error, such as[] . . . failing to explain the sentence adequately[] . . . [or] failing to address 

the defendant’s nonfrivolous arguments.” United States v. Lewis, 958 F.3d 240, 243 (4th 

Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A district court is required to provide an 

individualized assessment based on the facts before the court, and to explain adequately 

the sentence imposed to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the 

perception of fair sentencing.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). When explaining 

the sentence, the “district court must address or consider all non-frivolous reasons 

presented for imposing a different sentence and explain why it has rejected those 

arguments.” United States v. Webb, 965 F.3d 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). 

However, when the court has fully addressed the defendant’s “central thesis” at sentencing, 

it need not “address separately each supporting data point marshalled on its behalf.” United 

States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 214 (4th Cir. 2020). 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4739 Doc: 34 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 5
3

Allen first asserts that the district court failed to adequately consider his mitigating 

argument that he is a devoted father who made a terrible mistake by possessing firearms 

and storing them recklessly in his home. We disagree. Allen’s felon-in-possession 

conviction stemmed from the accidental shooting of Allen’s three-year-old child by another 

of his children with a firearm that Allen kept in his residence. At sentencing, the district 

court recognized that Allen already had endured significant punishment because of the 

injury to his child and his sense of responsibility for his child’s injury. The court thus 

implicitly acknowledged Allen’s argument that he was a devoted father who was

devastated by the incident and therefore should receive a lower sentence. But the court 

found that Allen’s criminal history and his offense conduct outweighed this mitigating 

circumstance, given that Allen’s own actions created the risk and danger that resulted in 

the injury to his child.

Next, Allen argues that the district court failed to address his argument that he had 

maintained gainful employment since his release from prison on his prior felony 

conviction. It is true that an argument related to a defendant’s history of gainful 

employment is nonfrivolous. See United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 744-45 (4th Cir. 

2019). Here, however, based on our review of the sentencing transcript, we conclude that 

Allen’s employment history was not the “central thesis” of his sentencing argument but

that it was merely a “data point marshalled on . . . behalf” of his central thesis: that Allen 

was a devoted father. See Nance, 957 F.3d at 214. Thus, the district court did not err by 

failing to separately address the issue of Allen’s employment history.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4739 Doc: 34 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 3 of 5
4

Lastly, Allen contends that the district court failed to address his mitigation 

argument that his criminal history was based, in part, on an offense he committed in 2006, 

when he was 18 years old. During his sentencing argument, counsel commented that 

Allen’s case was “incredibly difficult,” explaining that, “[o]n the one hand, Mr. Allen ha[d]

a very, very serious prior [offense]. On the other hand, it happened a long time ago and he 

was 18 years old at that time.” (J.A. 33).∗

 Counsel then discussed Allen’s devotion to his 

children, the circumstances surrounding Allen’s possession of the four firearms discovered 

in the residence, and Allen’s pain that his child had been injured. But counsel did not again 

mention the remoteness of Allen’s prior offense or Allen’s age when he committed it, and 

the court did not specifically address the argument. 

Even assuming that the district court’s failure to address this mitigation argument 

amounted to procedural error, we conclude that any error is harmless. An insufficient 

explanation for a chosen sentence can be harmless where the Government “demonstrates 

that the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the result and 

we can say with fair assurance that the district court’s explicit consideration of the 

defendant’s arguments would not have affected the sentence imposed.” United States v. 

Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 838 (4th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up). Here, the Government has met 

its burden. 

The district court stated that it had listened to counsel’s arguments, Allen’s 

allocution, and the character testimony offered on Allen’s behalf, and recognized that he

∗ “J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties in this appeal. 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4739 Doc: 34 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 4 of 5
5

made several arguments in favor of a lower sentence. But the court found troubling Allen’s 

prior violent felony conviction and the nature and circumstances of the instant offense, 

including the number of weapons and the “staggering amount” of ammunition he possessed

in his residence (J.A. 46), the nature of Allen’s acquisition of the firearms through another 

individual, the location and accessibility of the loaded firearms in his bedroom, and the risk 

and danger he brought home to his children that resulted in a serious injury to his child. 

The court concluded, after considering both the nature and circumstances of the offense 

and Allen’s history and characteristics, that a substantial sentence was warranted because 

Allen had a serious prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, 

had committed another criminal offense while on parole, and knowingly possessed 

multiple loaded weapons and “dozens of rounds of ammunition in the context of tragic 

injury to a child.” (J.A. 48). Based on our review of the record, we can say with “fair 

assurance” that the district court’s explicit consideration of the remoteness of Allen’s prior 

felony conviction would not have affected the sentence it imposed. See Boulware, 604 

F.3d at 838. 

Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4739 Doc: 34 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 5 of 5