Court Opinion

ID: 9930903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:00:55.126935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:57.765216
License: Public Domain

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

                                             UNPUBLISHED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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 2 of 5

        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-of-

        discretion 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).

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

               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.

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

               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.

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

                                                      5