USCA4 Appeal: 24-4218 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4727

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SEAN CHRISTIAN PARKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 24-4218

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SEAN CHRISTIAN PARKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:23-cr-00062-TDS-2)

Submitted: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 3, 2025 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4218 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: John J. Korzen, Director, Daria Elizabeth Brown, Student Counsel, Ryan Valerio, Student Counsel, Appellate Advocacy Clinic, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4218 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Sean Christian Parker pled guilty to attempted interference with commerce by

robbery, in violation of

, 1951(a). The district court sentenced Parker to 148

months’ imprisonment after finding that the

(a) factors warranted an

upward variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Parker appeals, arguing

that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. For the following

reasons, we affirm.

“We review the reasonableness of a sentence under

(a) using an

abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of whether [the sentence is] inside, just outside, or

significantly outside the Guidelines range.” United States v. Nance,

, 212 (4th

Cir. 2020) (citation modified). In performing that review, we first “evaluate procedural

reasonableness, determining whether the district court committed any procedural error,

such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a)

factors, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. While a district court

must address the “central thesis” of each sentencing argument, it is “not also required to

address separately each supporting data point marshalled on its behalf.” Id. at 214.

Parker first contends that the district court erred procedurally by failing to consider

several of his nonfrivolous mitigating arguments and failing to explain how the § 3553(a)

factors supported the imposition of the upward variant sentence. Our review of the record

confirms that the district court either engaged with the contested arguments directly or

addressed their central theses during its canvassing of Parker’s history and characteristics.

Additionally, the court conducted an individualized assessment of the sentencing factors

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4218 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

as they pertained to Parker, and explained how each factor counseled in favor of the

sentence it imposed.

Parker next argues that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively

unreasonable. If the district court has not committed procedural error, we then assess the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into account 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).” Nance,

957 F.3d at 212 (citation modified). “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.” Id. at 215 (citation modified). “We will generally

find a variance sentence reasonable when the reasons justifying the variance are tied to

§ 3553(a) and are plausible.” United States v. Provance,

, 219 (4th Cir. 2019)

(citation modified). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court

adequately justified the upward variance imposed and that Parker’s 148-month sentence is

substantively reasonable based on the factors the court identified.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny Parker’s motion

for 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, and affirm

the criminal judgment.

AFFIRMED

4