USCA4 Appeal: 23-4163 Doc: 37 Filed: 01/04/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KIMJUAN DWAYNE ELLIS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00011-D-1)

Submitted: December 14, 2023 Decided: January 4, 2024

Before HARRIS, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: David Q. Burgess, DAVID BURGESS LAW, PC, Charlotte, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4163 Doc: 37 Filed: 01/04/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Kimjuan Dwayne Ellis, Jr., appeals the 120-month sentence imposed on

resentencing following his guilty plea to possessing ammunition as a convicted felon, in

violation of

(g)(1). On appeal, Ellis argues his sentence is procedurally

unreasonable because the district court did not adequately explain its reasons for rejecting

one of his mitigating arguments. We affirm.

We review criminal sentences for procedural reasonableness “under a deferential

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

(4th Cir. 2021)

(internal quotation marks omitted). For a sentence to be procedurally reasonable, “a district

court must conduct an individualized assessment of the facts and arguments presented and

impose an appropriate sentence, and it must explain the sentence chosen.” United States

v. Nance,

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

Importantly, “a 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. Ross,

(4th Cir. 2019). A district court

satisfies this requirement “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 for a

[lower sentence].” United States v. Lozano,

(4th Cir. 2020) (internal

quotation marks omitted). At bottom, the district court’s “explanation need not be

exhaustive or robotically tick through the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors,” but it “must be

sufficient to satisfy the appellate court that the district court has considered the parties’

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4163 Doc: 37 Filed: 01/04/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.”

United States v. Friend,

(4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up); see also United

States v. Arbaugh,

(4th Cir. 2020) (“The adequacy of the sentencing

court’s explanation depends on the complexity of each case.” (cleaned up)).

Here, when discussing its chosen sentence, the district court specifically mentioned

Ellis’ mitigating arguments—including his argument regarding his brain development at

the time of the offense—before explaining that it found those arguments were outweighed

by the seriousness of the offense, Ellis’ criminal history, and the needs to protect the public

and afford adequate deterrence. The court specifically engaged with defense counsel’s

arguments regarding Ellis’ childhood and brain development, and it explicitly stated that it

had considered those arguments when choosing an appropriate sentence. These comments

sufficiently demonstrate that the district court “considered [Ellis’] arguments and ha[d] a

reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.” Friend,

(internal quotation marks omitted).

We therefore affirm the criminal 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

3