UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4954
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO SHAKUR TUCKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:13-cr-00110-H-1)
Submitted: May 30, 2014 Decided: June 5, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond C. Tarlton, TARLTON LAW PLLC, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Antonio Shakur Tucker pleaded guilty to one count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2012) (Count One), and one count
of possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(j), 924(a)(2) (Count Two). Because Tucker had three
prior violent felony convictions, there was a statutory
mandatory minimum fifteen year sentence for Count One. See 18
U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The district court sentenced Tucker to a
within-Guidelines sentence of 210 months for Count One and 120
months for Count Two, to run concurrently. On appeal, Tucker
contends that the court did not sufficiently consider his
argument for a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines. He
also contends that the statutory mandatory minimum sentence was
not appropriate because he did not admit to the prior
convictions nor were the convictions proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 46 (2007). We first review for significant procedural
errors, and if the sentence is free from such error, we then
review for substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. Procedural
errors include improperly calculating the Sentencing Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines range as mandatory, failing to
2
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and failing to
adequately explain the selected sentence. Id. To adequately
explain the sentence, the district court must make an
“individualized assessment” by applying the relevant § 3553(a)
factors to the case’s specific circumstances. United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). The individualized
assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, but it must be
adequate to allow meaningful appellate review. Id. at 330.
When explaining the chosen sentence, the “sentencing
judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court
that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned
basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.”
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). While a
district court must consider the statutory factors and explain
its sentence, it need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or
discuss every factor on the record. United States v. Johnson,
445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). This is particularly true
when the sentence is within the Guidelines. Id.
After reviewing the sentencing transcript, we conclude
that the district court adequately explained its reasoning for
the chosen sentence. In response to counsel’s argument for a
sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, the court took note
of the need for deterrence, the number of times Tucker had been
3
incarcerated and Tucker’s criminal history, which it described
as “exceedingly long and exceedingly criminal.”
We also find no error with the statutory mandatory
minimum sentence under § 924(e)(1). Tucker was given notice
that he could be sentenced under § 924(e) based on three prior
violent felony convictions and did not challenge the basis for
that finding. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.
224, 228-35 (1998). The convictions did not need to be admitted
by him or proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See United
States v. McDowell, 745 F.3d 115, 124 (4th Cir. 2014)
(Almendarez-Torres “remains good law”).
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and 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
4