UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4478

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRADLEY TYRONE SPRATT,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:21-cr-00044-CCE-1)

Submitted: August 23, 2022 Decided: August 25, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant 

Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Terry 

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

ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4478 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Bradley Tyrone Spratt pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to being a felon in 

possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The district 

court sentenced Spratt within the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to 108 months’ 

imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Spratt argues that his sentence 

is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). We affirm.

We review Spratt’s sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007). In doing so, we first 

examine the sentence for procedural error, “such as 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.” Id. at 51. We then review the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence; that is, we “examine[ ] the totality of the circumstances to 

see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it 

chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. MendozaMendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). Moreover, we presume that a sentence 

within or below a defendant’s advisory Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. 

United States v. Zelaya, 908 F.3d 920, 930 (4th Cir. 2018). “Such a presumption can only 

be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against 

the . . . § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4478 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Although Spratt only challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, we 

have reviewed the record and conclude that his sentence is procedurally reasonable. See 

United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). Spratt argues that his 

sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the 

goals of § 3553(a). However, the district court thoroughly discussed the relevant § 3553(a) 

factors, including the serious nature and circumstances of the offense, Spratt’s history and 

characteristics, and the need to protect the public from further crimes. The district court 

also engaged with Spratt’s counsel over her request for a downward variance, but 

ultimately rejected the request in light of the dangerous nature of the offense conduct—

which involved Spratt firing his then-girlfriend’s gun from the window of a vehicle, then 

pointing the gun at her head, and threatening to kill her—and Spratt’s robust criminal 

history, including prior firearm convictions. Our review convinces us that the district court 

carefully evaluated the § 3553(a) factors and appropriately weighed Spratt’s mitigating 

arguments when imposing a sentence within the Guidelines range. Thus, Spratt has failed 

to rebut the presumption of substantive reasonableness accorded his sentence. 

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 this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4478 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 3 of 3