USCA4 Appeal: 21-4558 Doc: 33 Filed: 06/11/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4558

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JUWON REAQWON MASSEY, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cr-00032-CCE-1)

Submitted: October 18, 2022 Decided: June 11, 2024

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Cynthia E. Everson, EVERSON LAW OFFICE, PLLC, Concord, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sarah J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, Craig M. Principe, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4558 Doc: 33 Filed: 06/11/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Juwon Reaqwon Massey appeals from the district court’s determination of his U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range. We review a district court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). In so doing, we ensure the district court did not make any procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the sentence imposed. Id. at 51. “When determining whether the district court properly applied the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, this Court reviews the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Claybrooks, 90 F.4th 248, 253 (4th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s determination of Massey’s Guidelines range and decision to sentence Massey within that range. 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