USCA4 Appeal: 24-4187 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4187

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PAUL RICHARD TOMLINSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:23-cr-00045-GMG-RWT-1)

Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: February 3, 2025

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Aaron D. Moss, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Kyle R. Kane, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 24-4187 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:

Paul Richard Tomlinson pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession of

a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of

(g)(1), 924(a)(8), and

interstate violation of a protective order and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of

, 2262(a)(1). The district court sentenced Tomlinson to 120 months’

imprisonment, which was more than double the high end of his Sentencing Guidelines

range. On appeal, Tomlinson argues that the sentence is procedurally and substantively

unreasonable because the district court failed to address his nonfrivolous arguments for a

lower sentence based on his status as a youthful offender, failed to justify the extent of the

upward variance, and failed to consider the Sentencing Commission’s position regarding

youthful offenders. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly

outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard.” Gall v. United States,

(2007); see United States v. Lewis,

(4th Cir. 2021). We must first “evaluate procedural reasonableness,

determining whether the district court committed any procedural error, such as improperly

calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, or

failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United States v. Nance,

(4th Cir. 2020).

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.”

(internal quotation marks omitted).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4187 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/03/2025 Pg: 3 of 5

Relevant here, “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). A “[d]istrict court[] need not spell out [its] responses to [the] defendant[’s]

arguments where context makes them clear. But the context must make it patently obvious

that the district court found the defendant’s arguments to be unpersuasive.”

(cleaned

up). Moreover, as long as the “district court addresses a defendant’s central thesis, it need

not address separately every specific claim made in support.” United States v. Powers,

, 137 (4th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up).

Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly engaged with

defense counsel’s youthful offender argument and noted that it had considered all of the

memoranda submitted and defense counsel’s arguments in opposition to an upward

variance. When imposing the sentence, the court recognized that Tomlinson was only 24

years old and that his mental health and substance abuse issues likely played a role in his

conduct, but it found that an upward variant sentence was warranted in light of Tomlinson’s

criminal history, his violent conduct associated with the current charges, and his danger to

the public. We therefore conclude that Tomlinson’s sentence is procedurally reasonable.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4187 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/03/2025 Pg: 4 of 5

If we find “no significant procedural error, [we] then consider[] the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence imposed.” United States v. Arbaugh,

(4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). “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).” Id. at 176 (cleaned up). “Where, as here, the sentence is outside the advisory

Guidelines range, we must consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both

with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to the extent of the

divergence from the sentencing range.” Nance,

(internal quotation marks

omitted). However, “district courts have extremely broad discretion when determining the

weight to be given each of the § 3553(a) factors, and the fact that a variance sentence

deviates, even significantly, from the Guidelines range does not alone render it

presumptively unreasonable.” Id. (cleaned up). Rather, “we must give due deference to

the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the

variance.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the district court clearly articulated the basis for finding that an upward

variance was warranted under the § 3553(a) factors. The district was particularly

concerned with Tomlinson’s violent criminal history at such a young age, the similarity of

this case to the Gabby Petito case, the months of physical and emotional abuse to which

Tomlinson subjected his victim, and the need to protect the public. We therefore conclude

that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the above-Guidelines

sentence.

4 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4187 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/03/2025 Pg: 5 of 5

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