USCA4 Appeal: 24-4566 Doc: 34 Filed: 11/13/2025 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4566

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ZAVIEN LENOY CANADA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:20-cr-00471-HMH-1)

Submitted: October 23, 2025 Decided: November 13, 2025

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis H. Lang, CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Brook B. Andrews, Acting United States Attorney, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4566 Doc: 34 Filed: 11/13/2025 Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Zavien Lenoy Canada of possession of a firearm and ammunition

by a convicted felon, in violation of

(g)(1), 924(a)(2). After this court

vacated Canada’s sentence and remanded for resentencing in light of United States v.

Rogers,

(4th Cir. 2020), the district court sentenced him under the Armed

Career Criminal Act (ACCA),

(e), to 220 months’ imprisonment and 5

years’ supervised release. Canada appealed, and this court determined he was improperly

sentenced under the ACCA, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing.

United States v. Canada,

(4th Cir. 2024), judgment vacated and

remanded,

(2024), aff’d on remand,

, 162 (4th Cir. 2024).

On remand, the district court calculated Canada’s advisory imprisonment range

under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2023) at 63 to 78 months and sentenced

him to 78 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. Canada appeals and

challenges the procedural reasonableness of his prison sentence. We affirm.

“This [c]ourt reviews all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly

outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United

States v. Claybrooks,

(4th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Generally, this court reviews a sentence for both procedural and substantive

reasonableness, although only the former is at issue here. See United States v.

Torres-Reyes,

(4th Cir. 2020).

For a criminal sentence to be procedurally reasonable, “a district court must begin

its sentencing proceeding by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range.” United

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4566 Doc: 34 Filed: 11/13/2025 Pg: 3 of 5

States v. Fowler,

(4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“Using this range as a jumping off point, the court must thereafter give the parties the

opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate and consider those

arguments in light of all of the factors stated in

(a).”

(internal quotation

marks omitted). “The court must then conduct an individualized assessment based on the

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

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

(citation modified).

This explanation must “provide some indication that the court considered the § 3553(a)

factors and applied them to the particular defendant.” United States v. Nance,

(4th Cir. 2020) (citation modified).

“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.” Fowler,

(citation modified).

“Importantly, in a routine case, where the district court imposes a within-Guidelines

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

(internal quotation marks

omitted). “When a district court has fully addressed the defendant’s central thesis during

sentencing, it need not address separately each supporting data point marshalled for a

downward variance.”

(internal quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court “meaningfully

considered,”

, Canada’s arguments for a downward departure or variance and

denied them based on relevant

(a) factors. The court heard and considered

Canada’s arguments that a below-Guidelines prison term of time served was warranted

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4566 Doc: 34 Filed: 11/13/2025 Pg: 4 of 5

based on various of the § 3553(a) factors. It engaged with and rejected those arguments

after considering all the § 3553(a) factors and explained that it was declining to impose a

downward variance and that a 78-month prison term was warranted based on the nature

and circumstances of Canada’s offense conduct, his history and characteristics—including

the length of, and numerosity of convictions in, his criminal record and his willingness to

engage in his criminal conduct while on federal supervised release—and the needs for the

sentence imposed to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and protect the

public from a dangerous individual unwilling to conform his conduct to the law,

see § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A), (C). * The court, we conclude, adequately addressed and did not

ignore the central theses of Canada’s variance arguments grounded in the notions that his

offense conduct was victimless, his criminal history had minor and non-violent offenses in

it, and imposition of a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range would serve no

penological or corrective purpose in his case.

We also reject as without merit Canada’s argument that the district court erred

because it never addressed in its comments his arguments that a time-served sentence was

warranted given his family support system, participation in prison programming, and

planning for release from imprisonment. Canada did not proffer non-frivolous arguments

* The district court, we conclude, incorporated at resentencing its statements previously made in sentencing Canada finding him a danger to society in light of his lengthy criminal record and that the public had a right to be protected from him in light of his criminal record and the nature of his offense conduct.

4 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4566 Doc: 34 Filed: 11/13/2025 Pg: 5 of 5

for a downward variance or departure grounded in these matters. Cf. Fowler,

.

Accordingly, we 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

5