UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4255
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GEOFFREY NNABUGO NWAFOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:15-cr-00547-JKB-1)
Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani, OFFICE
OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Lauren E.
Perry, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Geoffrey Nwafor appeals from the 28-month sentence imposed
after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry by a deported alien,
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012). Nwafor argues that
his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Nwafor contends that his sentence is procedurally
unreasonable because the district court did not adequately
consider a sentencing amendment that was awaiting Congressional
approval and his request for a downward variance sentence. We
review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46
(2007). The court first reviews for significant procedural
error, and if the sentence is free from such error, it then
considers substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. Procedural
error includes improperly calculating the Sentencing Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines range as mandatory, failing to
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
2
assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, but it must be
adequate to allow meaningful appellate review. Id. at 330.
The court considered the proposed amendment, specifically
stated so on the record, and said that it was aware that the
amendment would reduce the sentencing exposure, but that the
sentence was based on Nwafor’s prior conviction and his conduct
when he returned to the United States, including identity theft
and fraudulent receipt of government-funded benefits. Nwafor
suggests that the court “robotically ticked” through the
§ 3553(a) factors and contends that the court did not consider
his arguments for a downward variance. His claims are
contradicted by the sentencing transcript. The court considered
Nwafor’s request, but imposed the 28-month sentence, citing
Nwafor’s prior aggravated drug felony offense, the identity
theft once he reentered unlawfully, and the need for deterrence.
“Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated
Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.
Such a 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) (citations omitted). Nwafor posits that his
sentence was substantively unreasonable because it is higher
than it would have been had the proposed amendment been applied.
This argument is not sufficient to rebut the presumption.
3
Nwafor presents no other evidence to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness applicable to his properly calculated
within-Guidelines sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the 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