Court Opinion

ID: 9905682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 21:00:51.030222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:50.311268
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4023      Doc: 29         Filed: 11/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4023

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        STEVEN ANTONIO PETERSON,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:22-cr-00145-BO-BM-1)

        Submitted: November 21, 2023                                Decided: November 28, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
        North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A.
        Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Philip L. Aubart, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4023      Doc: 29         Filed: 11/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Steven Antonio Peterson pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of a firearm and

        ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). * The

        district court sentenced Peterson to a total of 168 months’ imprisonment, within the

        Sentencing Guidelines range, and Peterson now appeals. On appeal, Peterson contends

        that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to address

        some of the mitigating arguments he presented in support of a lower sentence, including

        his acceptance of responsibility, his family support, and his desire to give back to his

        community through mentoring. Finding no error, we affirm.

               We    review    a   sentence    for   reasonableness,    applying   “a    deferential

        abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “A district

        court is required . . . to explain adequately the sentence imposed to allow for meaningful

        appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” United States v. Lewis,

        958 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] district court’s

        explanation should provide some indication that the court considered the [18 U.S.C.]

        § 3553(a) factors . . . and also that it considered [the] defendant’s nonfrivolous arguments

        for a lower sentence.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212-13 (4th Cir. 2020)

               *
                Section 924(a)(2) was amended and no longer provides the penalty for § 922(g)(1)
        convictions; the new penalty provision in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8) sets forth a statutory
        maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for a § 922(g)(1) offense. See Bipartisan
        Safer Communities Act, Pub. L. No. 117-159, § 12004(c), 136 Stat. 1313, 1329 (2022).
        The 15-year statutory maximum does not apply in this case, however, because Peterson
        committed his offense before the June 25, 2022, amendment of the statute.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4023       Doc: 29         Filed: 11/28/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        (cleaned up).     However, “in a routine case, where the district court imposes a

        within-Guidelines sentence, the explanation need not be elaborate or lengthy.” United

        States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 174-75 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

        Thus, we will not vacate a sentence where “[t]he context surrounding a district court’s

        explanation . . . imbue[s] it with enough content for us to evaluate both whether the court

        considered the § 3553(a) factors and whether it did so properly.” United States v.

        Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 381 (4th Cir. 2006).

               We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court adequately

        considered the parties’ arguments and explained its rationale for imposing Peterson’s

        168-month sentence based on Peterson’s history and characteristics and the dangerous

        nature of the conduct underlying the § 922(g) offenses. Indeed, as here, when the court

        has fully addressed the defendant’s “central thesis” in mitigation, it need not “address

        separately each supporting data point marshalled on its behalf.” Nance, 957 F.3d at 214.

        In any event, even if the district court erred, as the record provides “fair assurance that the

        district court’s explicit consideration of the defendant’s arguments would not have affected

        the sentence imposed,” we conclude that any such error would be harmless. See United

        States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 838 (4th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up).

               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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                      3