Court Opinion

ID: 9403951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 21:00:42.010935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:10.076284
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4497      Doc: 26         Filed: 06/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4497

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        TERRENCE BRANDON MABRY, a/k/a TJ,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00485-FL-1)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                          Decided: June 20, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Mitchell G. Styers, BANZET, THOMPSON, STYERS & MAY, PLLC,
        Warrenton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney,
        David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4497       Doc: 26         Filed: 06/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

                 Terrence Brandon Mabry pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to conspiracy to

        distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and heroin; six counts

        of distribution of cocaine; eight counts of distribution of cocaine base; possession with

        intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base; and possession of a firearm by a convicted

        felon.    The district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 335 months’

        imprisonment. On appeal, Mabry argues that the district court imposed a procedurally

        unreasonable sentence because it failed to (1) address his nonfrivolous arguments for a

        downward variance; (2) provide an individualized explanation for the sentence imposed;

        and (3) adequately consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. He also argues his sentence

        is substantively unreasonable because the chosen sentence is greater than necessary to

        achieve the sentencing goals of § 3553(a). We affirm.

                 We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly

        outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

        standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see United States v. Blue, 877

        F.3d 513, 517 (4th Cir. 2017). To assess procedural reasonableness, we consider whether

        the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range,

        adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, sufficiently explained the selected

        sentence, and addressed any nonfrivolous arguments for a different sentence. United

        States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). A “district court[] need not

        robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.” United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d

        167, 174 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). The sentencing explanation

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4497      Doc: 26         Filed: 06/20/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        need not be extensive, but it must demonstrate that the district court had “a reasoned basis

        for exercising [its] own legal decision-making authority.” Provance, 944 F.3d at 218

        (internal quotation marks omitted).

               “If the sentence is procedurally sound, we then consider the substantive

        reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.”

        United States v. McCain, 974 F.3d 506, 515 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). A sentence is presumptively substantively reasonable if it “is within or below a

        properly calculated Guidelines range,” and this “presumption can only be rebutted by

        showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

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

               Mabry argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district

        court failed to address why it rejected his request for a downward variance and failed to

        provide an individualized explanation for the chosen sentence. However, the district court

        explained that Mabry’s conduct was particularly egregious because he dealt drugs while in

        jail, which reflected his dangerousness and likelihood to recidivate. The court also

        discussed Mabry’s leadership role, criminal history, difficult childhood, and employment

        history. The court adequately considered Mabry’s nonfrivolous arguments and the relevant

        § 3553(a) factors, including his personal characteristics, criminal history, the seriousness

        of his offenses, the need for deterrence, and the need to protect the public. The court’s

        explanation was sufficient to support the imposition of Mabry’s within-Guidelines

        sentence, and Mabry does not overcome the presumption of reasonableness afforded to it.

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4497      Doc: 26         Filed: 06/20/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        Mabry’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable, and we thus discern no

        abuse of discretion the district court’s imposition of the 335-month prison term.

               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

                                                     4