UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4176
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DARNELL ANTHONY YOUNG, a/k/a DJ Nelly Nell, a/k/a Nelly,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00491-WDQ-1)
Submitted: August 24, 2011 Decided: September 7, 2011
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary A. Ticknor, Elkridge, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Tonya Kelly Kowitz,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Darnell Anthony Young of conspiracy
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and possession with intent
to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2006), and the district court sentenced him to 136 months’
imprisonment. In Young’s first appeal, we affirmed Young’s
conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded for
resentencing. United States v. Young, 609 F.3d 348, 359 (4th
Cir. 2010). On remand, the district court rejected Young’s
arguments for a downward variance and sentenced Young to 188
months’ imprisonment. Young again appeals, arguing that the
district court’s sentence was procedurally unreasonable.
Finding no error, we affirm.
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)
(2006) 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
2
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).
“‘Where the defendant . . . presents nonfrivolous
reasons for imposing a different sentence’ than that set forth
in the advisory Guidelines, a district judge should address the
party’s arguments and ‘explain why he has rejected those
arguments.’” Id. at 328 (quoting Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 357 (2007)). Upon review, we conclude that the
district court adequately addressed Young’s nonfrivolous reasons
for a downward variant sentence before rejecting them and did
not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence at the bottom of
the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. See United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard
of review for properly preserved procedural sentencing error);
see also Gall, 552 U.S. at 46.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment
sentencing Young to 188 months’ imprisonment. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4