UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4264
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TAQUAN JAMES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:16-cr-00069-BO-1)
Submitted: January 25, 2018 Decided: February 23, 2018
Before TRAXLER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Acting Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-
Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Taquan James pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a person previously
convicted of a felony, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2012), and two counts of distribution
of heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012). The district court sentenced James to 46 months
of imprisonment as to each count to be served concurrently. The court also imposed three
years of supervised release on the firearm charge and ten years of supervised release as to
the drug charges, to be served concurrently. James appeals, contending that the district
court committed plain error when it varied upward from his three-year advisory Guidelines
range with respect to his supervised release and failed to explain the reasons for his
sentence. We affirm.
We review a sentence for abuse of discretion, determining whether the sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. United States v. Heath, 559 F.3d 263, 266 (4th
Cir. 2009). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for “significant procedural error,”
including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating
the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors,
selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We then “‘consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.’” United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d
155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). In sentencing a defendant, a district
court must conduct an individualized assessment of the particular facts of every sentence,
whether the court imposes a sentence above, below, or within the Guidelines range. United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
2
Where, as here, a defendant does not request a sentence other than that imposed or
outside the applicable Guidelines range, we review for plain error. United States v. Lynn,
592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010). To demonstrate plain error, James must show that there
was (1) error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected his substantial rights. See United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993). Moreover, we will not exercise our discretion
to recognize the error unless the “error seriously affects the fairness, integrity[,] or public
reputation of the judicial proceedings.” Id. at 732 (internal quotation marks omitted).
A sentencing error affects substantial rights if the defendant can show that the
sentence imposed “was longer than that to which he would otherwise be subject.” United
States v. Washington, 404 F.3d 834, 843 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted);
see also United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 548 (4th Cir. 2005) (sentencing error
affects substantial rights if sentence is longer than defendant would have received).
Although James argues that the district court failed to provide an explanation for the
sentence imposed, we conclude that he has not demonstrated that the court’s failure to
explain the sentence resulted in a supervised release term longer than that to which he
would otherwise have been subject. James therefore failed to establish plain error. See
Olano, 507 U.S. at 731-32. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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