United States v. Byron Welton , 474 F. App'x 984 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4166
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BYRON JERMAINE WELTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:10-cr-00136-HMH-1)
Submitted: July 24, 2012 Decided: August 3, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Byron Jermaine Welton pled guilty, without a plea
agreement, to armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a), (d) (2006), and knowingly using and carrying a
firearm during and in relation to, and possessing the firearm in
furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). He received a within-Guidelines sentence
of 130 months’ imprisonment. Welton argues that his sentence is
procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to
provide sufficient explanation for its chosen sentence. We
affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). A sentence is procedurally
reasonable if, among other things, the court sufficiently
explains its reasons for imposing it. United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). The district court must
provide “an individualized assessment based on the particular
facts of the case before it.” Id. at 330. While every sentence
requires an adequate explanation, when the district court
imposes a sentence within the Guidelines range, “the explanation
need not be elaborate or lengthy.” United States v. Hernandez,
603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010).
2
At his sentencing hearing, Welton argued that due to
his post-offense diagnosis of schizophrenia, a variance below
the Guidelines range was appropriate. The district court
declined to vary downward. Welton contends that the district
court did not provide an adequate explanation of its refusal.
The “individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy,
but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case
at hand and adequate to permit ‘meaningful appellate
review.’” Carter, 564 F.3d at 330 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at
51). The district court addressed Welton’s argument for a
variance and explained that Welton’s record of violent felonies,
refusal to take medication, and danger to the public supported a
more stringent sentence. Our review of the record leads us to
conclude that the district court provided an adequate
explanation of Welton’s sentence and did not abuse its
discretion in imposing its chosen sentence.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3