UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4679
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVENSON GILBERTO HARRISON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:15-cr-00015-JPJ-PMS-1)
Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: July 6, 2016
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Nancy C. Dickenson,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellant. John P. Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Kevin
L. Jayne, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stevenson Gilberto Harrison, Jr., appeals his 60-month
prison sentence after pleading guilty to failing to register as
a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (2012). The
district court sentenced him above his advisory Guidelines range
of 30 to 37 months. On appeal, Harrison contends his sentence
is unreasonable, excessive, and greater than necessary to comply
with the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). We affirm.
We review “the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) using an abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of
‘whether [the sentence is] inside, just outside, or
significantly outside the Guidelines range.’” United States v.
Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). We “must first ensure that the
district court committed no significant procedural error, such
as failing to . . . adequately explain the chosen sentence —
including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines
range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If the sentence is procedurally
reasonable, we consider its substantive reasonableness,
“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances,
including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.”
Id. If the sentence is outside the Guidelines range, we “may
consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due
2
deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a)
factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id.
The district court “must make an individualized assessment
based on the facts presented when imposing a sentence,
apply[ing] the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the specific
circumstances of the case and the defendant, and must state in
open court the particular reasons supporting its chosen
sentence.” Lymas, 781 F.3d at 113 (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). “In imposing a variance sentence, the
district court must consider the extent of the deviation and
ensure that the justification is significantly compelling to
support the degree of the variance.” Id. (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). “[A] district court’s explanation of
its sentence need not be lengthy, but the court must offer some
individualized assessment justifying the sentence imposed and
rejection of arguments for a higher or lower sentence based on
§ 3553.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The “court’s stated rationale must be tailored to the particular
case at hand and adequate to permit meaningful appellate
review.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Harrison’s
sentence is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances,
and the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in
sentencing him above his Guidelines range. The court made an
3
individualized assessment based on the facts presented, applied
the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances of
the case and the defendant, and adequately explained the
particular reasons supporting its sentence. Among other things,
the court found that Harrison’s offense was particularly serious
because it was repetitive, as he had previously been convicted
of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2250, and he had no excuse for the
offense. The court also found that a sentence in the Guidelines
range was not adequate to protect the public from further crimes
of the defendant and to deter him from further criminal conduct.
We therefore give due deference to the court’s reasoned and
reasonable decision that the § 3553(a) factors justified the
sentence. See United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 367
(4th Cir. 2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4