USCA4 Appeal: 23-4503 Doc: 46 Filed: 10/11/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4503

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PIERRE TOLLIVER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cr-00026-GMG-RWT-17)

Submitted: October 8, 2024 Decided: October 11, 2024

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Diana Stavroulakis, Weirton, West Virginia, for Appellant. William Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Lara K. Omps-Botteicher, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4503 Doc: 46 Filed: 10/11/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Pierre Tolliver pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and

distribute Eutylone, in violation of

. The district court initially sentenced

Tolliver to the low end of the Sentencing Guidelines range of 37 months of imprisonment,

and Tolliver appealed. After the Sentencing Commission enacted Amendment 821 to the

Guidelines, Tolliver moved for a sentence reduction under

(c)(2). We

remanded the appeal to the district court for the limited purpose of considering Tolliver’s

unopposed motion for a sentence reduction. On remand, the district court granted

Tolliver’s motion, reducing his sentence to the low end of the amended Guidelines range

of 33 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Tolliver argues that the sentence is procedurally

and substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.

Torres-Reyes,

(4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). In conducting this review,

we first ensure that the sentence is procedurally reasonable, “consider[ing] whether the

district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory [G]uidelines range, gave the

parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the

(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.”

(internal quotation

marks omitted). When imposing a sentence, “the district court must make an

individualized assessment based on the facts presented, . . . state in open court the reasons

supporting its chosen sentence,” and “address the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments in favor

of a particular sentence;” if the court rejects those arguments, it must explain why in a

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4503 Doc: 46 Filed: 10/11/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

manner allowing for meaningful appellate review. United States v. Provance,

(4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).

If a sentence is procedurally sound, we then review the substantive reasonableness

of the sentence. Gall v. United States,

(2007). “When considering the

substantive reasonableness of a prison term, we examine the totality of the circumstances

to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it

chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. Arbaugh,

(4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Any sentence that is within

or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively]

reasonable,” and that presumption may only be rebutted by a showing that the sentence is

unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Louthian,

(4th Cir. 2014).

Tolliver argues that the district court failed to sufficiently consider and explain its

rejection of his arguments for a downward variance, and that the sentence is substantively

unreasonable. We have reviewed the record, however, and conclude that the court

sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing a sentence at the low end of the amended

advisory Guidelines range. Specifically, the court cited Tolliver’s role in and serious nature

of the offense, Tolliver’s extensive criminal history which included prior drug and assault

offenses, and Tolliver’s personal circumstances. The court rejected Tolliver’s argument

that he should receive a downward variance based on injuries he sustained from a prior

shooting, noting that Tolliver continued to distribute drugs after his injury and that he could

receive the treatment he needed in a medical facility. In addition, based on the factors

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4503 Doc: 46 Filed: 10/11/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

identified by the district court, Tolliver has failed to overcome the presumption of

reasonableness applied to his within-Guidelines sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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