USCA4 Appeal: 24-4064 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4064

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TAJ’MA DE’YONG USSERY, a/k/a Pop Off,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:23-cr-00034-BO-RJ-1)

Submitted: October 25, 2024 Decided: December 19, 2024

Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Mitchell G. Styers, BANZET, THOMPSON, STYERS & MAY, PLLC, Warrenton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4064 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:

A federal jury convicted Taj’Ma Ussery of distribution of methamphetamine, in

violation of

(a). The district court sentenced Ussery to 100 months of

imprisonment and Ussery now appeals. On appeal, Ussery argues that the sentence is

procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to address his

nonfrivolous arguments for a lower sentence or conduct an individualized assessment of

his history and characteristics. We affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential

abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. McCoy,

(4th Cir. 2015)

(internal quotation marks omitted). In doing so, we first evaluate the sentence for any

procedural errors, such as improperly calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range,

insufficiently considering the

(a) factors, or inadequately explaining the

chosen sentence. United States v. Nance,

(4th Cir. 2020). If the sentence

is procedurally reasonable, we then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,

considering “the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the sentencing court

abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth

in § 3553(a).” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Any sentence within or below a

properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable” and the “presumption

can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against

the

(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian,

(4th Cir.

2014).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4064 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/19/2024 Pg: 3 of 5

“A district court is required to provide an individualized assessment based on the

facts before the court, and to explain adequately the sentence imposed to allow for

meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” United

States v. Lewis,

(4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “As

part of this individualized assessment, the district court must address or consider all

non-frivolous reasons presented for imposing a different sentence and explain why it has

rejected those arguments.” United States v. Fowler,

(4th Cir. 2023)

(cleaned up). An “explanation is sufficient if it, although somewhat briefly, outlines the

defendant’s particular history and characteristics not merely in passing or after the fact, but

as part of its analysis of the statutory factors and in response to defense counsel’s

arguments” in mitigation. United States v. Blue,

(4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned

up). “The court’s explanation should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that it

has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal

decisionmaking authority.” United States v. Lozano,

(4th Cir. 2020)

(cleaned up).

“[I]n a routine case, where the district court imposes a within-Guidelines sentence,

the explanation need not be elaborate or lengthy.” Fowler,

(internal

quotation marks omitted). So long as the district court “has fully addressed the defendant’s

central thesis during sentencing, it need not address separately each supporting data point

marshalled” on the defendant’s behalf.

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Additionally, we “will not vacate a sentence simply because the district court did not spell

out what the context of its explanation made patently obvious.” Blue,

-21

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4064 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/19/2024 Pg: 4 of 5

(cleaned up). “Engaging counsel in a discussion about the merits of an argument in favor

of a particular sentence, for example, may be sufficient to permit a reviewing court to infer

that a sentencing court gave specific attention to a defendant’s argument.” United States v.

Provance,

(4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United

States v. Arbaugh,

(4th Cir. 2020) (“[T]his admonition focuses on the

whole of a defendant’s argument and does not require the court to address every argument

a defendant makes.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Ultimately, “[t]he adequacy of

the sentencing court’s explanation depends on the complexity of each case and the facts

and arguments presented.” United States v. Torres-Reyes,

(4th Cir.

2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Ussery’s mitigating arguments were the type of straightforward and simple

sentencing arguments that required only a brief explanation. See, e.g., Rita v. United States,

(2007) (holding that defendant’s “conceptually simple” request for

downward departure based on his vulnerability to retribution in prison, military experience,

and physical condition required only brief explanation). Here, the district court had been

present throughout all proceedings and was familiar with Ussery’s history and the offense

conduct—including his attempts to obstruct justice. Ussery made only brief arguments

about his criminal history, the nature of the offense, his addiction, and his family support;

these arguments totaled a single page of transcript, providing little for the district court to

comment upon that had not already been discussed. Regarding Ussery’s criminal history

category, the court addressed that argument, acknowledging that Ussery requested a

downward variance to account for a pending request for expunction of his prior conviction

4 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4064 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/19/2024 Pg: 5 of 5

in state court, but concluding that it did not warrant a lower sentence. The court also

acknowledged Ussery’s claim that he suffered from addiction by recommending drug

treatment and counseling, and found the within-Guidelines sentence appropriate based on

Ussery’s history and characteristics, as well as the need to protect the public and provide

just punishment. Finally, Ussery 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

5