USCA4 Appeal: 23-4240 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4240

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID ANTHONY TAYLOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:12-cr-00043-MFU-1)

Submitted: December 19, 2023 Decided: December 21, 2023

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Juval O. Scott, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville, Virginia, Randy V. Cargill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher R. Kavanaugh, United States Attorney, Jonathan Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4240 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

David Anthony Taylor appeals from his 240-month sentence, imposed at

resentencing. On appeal, Taylor asserts that the sentencing judge gave undue consideration

to the judgment imposed by a different judge at Taylor’s original sentencing hearing.

Finding no error, we affirm.

In 2013, a jury convicted Taylor of two counts of attempted Hobbs Act robbery and

one count of possessing or using a firearm in furtherance of one of the robberies, in

violation of

(c). * The district court sentenced Taylor to imprisonment for

336 months, consisting of 252 months for each robbery to run concurrently and 84 months

for the firearm count to run consecutively. We affirmed the convictions and sentence.

United States v. Taylor,

(4th Cir. 2014), aff’d,

(2016).

Taylor thereafter filed a

motion seeking to reverse his firearm

conviction, arguing that his Hobbs Act robbery offense was not a valid predicate offense

to support his conviction under § 924(c). Following rejection of the motion by the district

court, the Government agreed that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a valid

predicate offense under § 924(c). See United States v. Justin Taylor,

(2022). Thus, we granted the Government’s motion to remand, vacated Taylor’s

sentence, and remanded the case for resentencing.

* The original judgment showed two convictions for Hobbs Act conspiracy. The district court later corrected its clerical error and amended the judgment to indicate convictions for substantive Hobbs Act robberies. However, the parties now agree that Taylor was convicted of attempted Hobbs Act robberies.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4240 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/21/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

On remand, the district court, without objection, calculated a Sentencing Guidelines

range of 235-293 months in prison and noted that the statutory maximum for each Hobbs

Act robbery conviction was 240 months. The Government sought reimposition of the

336-month sentence, to be accomplished by running the two Hobbs Act robbery sentences

partially consecutive. The Government relied on the undisputed heinous and violent nature

of the underlying crimes and Taylor’s serious criminal history prior to the offenses of

conviction. Taylor sought a sentence of 120 months, citing his post-offense remorse and

rehabilitation and the shorter sentences of his codefendants.

The district court considered at length the parties’ arguments and the sentencing

factors. While doing so, the court briefly mentioned that the lengthy sentence imposed at

Taylor’s first sentencing was “reflective of the crime.” (J.A. 167). The court also noted

that, in choosing to run the sentences concurrently, he was “going to do the same thing [the

prior judge] did, who heard the trial in this case.” (J.A. 176).

We find that the court properly and adequately assessed the sentencing factors and

explained its reasoning for imposing the within-Guidelines sentence. The court explicitly

balanced Taylor’s mitigating arguments against his violent offense conduct, his criminal

history, and the court’s obligation to protect the public interest. The district court

considered the original sentencing court’s reasoning and conclusions only in passing and

in further support of its conclusions regarding the severity of the underlying crimes. In

addition, the court did not consider the original sentence as an “initial benchmark” at

Taylor’s resentencing. See United States v. Abed,

(4th Cir. 2021)

(approving consideration of prior sentencing when it sheds light on appropriate sentencing

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4240 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/21/2023 Pg: 4 of 4

factors). Accordingly, any mention of the original sentencing court’s conclusions did not

render Taylor’s sentence either substantively or procedurally unreasonable. See Gall v.

United States,

(2007) (standard of review).

As such, we affirm Taylor’s sentence. 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