USCA4 Appeal: 25-4335 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4335

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC ANTHONY GARNER, a/k/a Pops,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:24-cr-00003-GMG-RWT-2)

Submitted: November 25, 2025 Decided: December 2, 2025

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Derrick W. Lefler, Princeton, West Virginia, for Appellant. Randolph J. Bernard, Acting United States Attorney, Lara K. Omps-Botteicher, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 25-4335 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Eric Anthony Garner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

and to distribute 400 grams or more of a fentanyl mixture, in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. The district court sentenced Garner to 300 months’

imprisonment, on the lower end of his Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Garner

argues that the sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.

Torres-Reyes,

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

conducting this review, we first ensure that the sentence is procedurally reasonable,

“consider[ing] whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory

guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence,

considered the

(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected

sentence.”

(internal quotation marks omitted). When imposing a sentence, “the district

court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented, . . . state in

open court the particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence,” and “address the parties’

nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a particular sentence.” United States v. Provance,

(4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the court rejects those

arguments, it must explain why in a manner allowing for meaningful appellate review.

If a sentence is procedurally sound, we then review the substantive reasonableness

of the sentence. Gall v. United States,

(2007). “When considering the

substantive reasonableness of a prison term, we examine the totality of the circumstances

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4335 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/02/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it

chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. Arbaugh,

(4th Cir. 2020) (citation modified). “Any sentence that is within or below a

properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable,” and that

presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when

measured against the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Louthian,

(4th

Cir. 2014).

Garner argues that the district court’s sentence is procedurally unreasonable because

the court failed to sufficiently consider and explain its rejection of his arguments for a

downward variance based on his age. Garner further asserts that the sentence is

substantively unreasonable because the court did not consider his age when analyzing the

§ 3553(a) factors. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court sufficiently

explained its reasons for imposing a sentence at the lower end of the advisory Guidelines

range. Specifically, the court rejected Garner’s argument that he should receive a

downward variance because of his age, acknowledging that Garner was 58 years old and

noting that previous imprisonments had not deterred Garner from committing escalated

criminal activities. We further conclude that the sentence was substantively reasonable as

the court noted that Garner’s physical disabilities did not prevent him from consistently

violating the law, including his involved role in the instant conspiracy. Based on the factors

identified by the district court, Garner has failed to overcome the presumption of

reasonableness applied to his within-Guidelines sentence.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4335 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/02/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

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

4