UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4671
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CURTIS ALLEN THOMAS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Senior District
Judge. (1:11-cr-00144-BEL-1)
Submitted: March 21, 2013 Decided: April 18, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Joanna Silver, Staff
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, James G. Warwick, Assistant
United States Attorney, Christine L. Duey, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Allen Thomas, Jr., appeals his 324-month
sentence for robbery and related charges. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
Thomas and an accomplice attempted to rob a Baltimore
pizzeria at about 3:00 a.m. on December 10, 2010. Thomas held a
gun to the owner’s head, ordered the employees into a small
office, and told them to get down on their knees. At one point,
Thomas touched the gun to the owner’s head and told him he was
going to blow his head off. The owner testified at trial that
he heard a click. He struggled with Thomas for control of the
gun and, with the help of store employees, was able to disarm
Thomas and subdue him until law enforcement arrived.
A grand jury charged Thomas with interfering with
commerce by robbery and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a) (2006) (Count One), possessing a firearm in
furtherance of, and using and carrying a firearm during and in
relation to, a crime of violence, and in doing so, brandishing
the firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006)
(Count Two), and possession of a firearm and ammunition by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006)
(Count Three). The jury convicted Thomas on all three counts.
At the sentencing hearing, the Government sought a
total sentence of thirty years, noting that Thomas had several
2
prior state armed robbery convictions from 1993 for which he
received concurrent sentences and arguing that he was a
recidivist whose armed robberies were “traumatic to the victims
involved and [made him] dangerous to the community at large.”
Defense counsel sought a below-Guidelines sentence of twenty-two
years, arguing that the Guidelines range overstated the
seriousness of Thomas’ criminal history, emphasizing the age of
his prior robbery convictions.
Defense counsel disputed the Government’s argument
that Thomas was a danger to society and countered that Thomas
had demonstrated that he could be a law-abiding citizen, noting
that in the seven years between his release on parole for the
1993 robberies and his 2010 arrest for the instant crimes,
Thomas had only a single drug possession conviction, for which
he received a ninety-day sentence. In addition, defense counsel
noted that a twenty-two-year sentence would give Thomas hope of
spending the last years of his life outside of prison and would
motivate him towards self-improvement. The district court
sentenced Thomas to 60 months on Count One, 84 months on Count
Two, and 180 months on Count Three, all to be served
consecutively, for a total sentence of 324 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Thomas contends that the sentence imposed
by the district court is procedurally unreasonable because the
district court failed to consider his arguments at sentencing.
3
Thomas preserved his challenge to the adequacy of the district
court’s explanation “[b]y drawing arguments from [18 U.S.C.] §
3553 [(2006)] for a sentence different than the one ultimately
imposed.” United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir.
2010). Thus, this court’s review is for abuse of discretion,
and any error must result in reversal unless it was harmless.
Id. at 579.
“Although sentencing courts are statutorily required
to state their reasons for imposing a particular sentence, see
18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(c) [(West Supp. 2012)], it is not necessary
that a court issue a comprehensive, detailed opinion.” United
States v. Allmendinger, 706 F.3d 330, 343 (4th Cir. 2013). The
district court’s explanation for its sentence must be sufficient
to allow for “‘meaningful appellate review,’” Id. at 330
(quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007)), such
that the appellate court need “not guess at the district court’s
rationale.” Id. at 329. Furthermore, “[w]here the defendant or
prosecutor 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 [it] has rejected those arguments.”
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
4
Thomas argues that the sentence imposed by the
district court was procedurally unreasonable because the court
did not specifically address his arguments regarding the age of
his prior robbery convictions, their proximity in time to each
other, the concurrent sentences he received for them, or the
fact that in the seven years between his release from prison and
his arrest for the instant offense, he had only been convicted
of a single minor drug offense. The district court explained
that it was imposing a longer sentence than the one Thomas
requested because of the circumstances of his case. The court
emphasized that in the course of the instant offense, victims
were placed on their knees at gunpoint and there was testimony
that “the trigger was pulled and clicked.” The court also noted
that Thomas had committed “a distressing series of armed
robberies in the past.” Under these circumstances, the court
concluded, a substantial sentence was necessary to incapacitate
Thomas in the interest of public safety. However, the court
specifically credited defense counsel’s argument that Thomas
should be able to visualize a time when he would be free.
Therefore, although the court imposed a longer sentence than
that requested by Thomas, it was shorter than the one sought by
the Government.
Although the district court “might have said more” to
explain the sentence it chose, Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
5
338, 359-60 (2007), its explanation was “elaborate enough to
allow [this Court] to effectively review the reasonableness of
the sentence.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375,
380 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). The district court’s explanation demonstrated that it
had considered Thomas’s position and adequately articulated its
reasons for the sentence it imposed. We therefore conclude that
the sentence was not procedurally unreasonable.
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
6