UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4368
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHERRON ANTONIO DEGRAFFENREID, a/k/a Shaerron Degraffenried,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00254-BR-1)
Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 27, 2013
Before DAVIS, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sherron Degraffenreid pled guilty, without a written
plea agreement, to possessing a firearm after having been
convicted of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012), and was
sentenced to a within-Guidelines term of 37 months’
imprisonment. He appeals, arguing that his sentence was
unreasonable because the district court failed to address
mitigating evidence he presented at sentencing.
In reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the
district court did not commit any “significant procedural
error,” such as failing to properly calculate the applicable
Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district
court is not required to “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s
every subsection.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345
(4th Cir. 2006). However, the district court “must place on the
record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular
facts of the case before it. This individualized assessment
need not be elaborate or lengthy, but it must provide a
rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate
to permit ‘meaningful appellate review.’” United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552
U.S. at 50) (internal footnote omitted)).
2
At Degraffenreid’s sentencing hearing, his attorney
argued for a below-Guidelines sentence of 24 months — pointing
out to the court, inter alia, Degraffenreid’s excellent work
history, his family’s support, and serious injuries he had
already sustained after an attack by another inmate.
Degraffenreid addressed the court personally, apologizing for
his conduct and also pointing out that he had remained in school
after his indictment and completed a course to obtain his
commercial driver’s license.
We conclude, based on our review of the record,
including the sentencing transcript, that the district court
adequately considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors and
explained its reasons for the chosen sentence. The court
clearly took into consideration the specific arguments
Degraffenreid’s attorney made for a downward variance but found
that a Guidelines sentence was appropriate.
Accordingly, we affirm Degraffenreid’s sentence. 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