United States v. Chernoh Jalloh , 669 F. App'x 640 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4329
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHERNOH A. JALLOH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (6:15-cr-00617-BHH-1)
Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Beth Drake, Acting
United States Attorney, William J. Watkins, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chernoh A. Jalloh appeals the 37-month sentence imposed
after he pled guilty to conspiracy to commit access device
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3) (2012). Jalloh
asserts only that the district court failed to adequately
explain the chosen sentence, thereby rendering his sentence
procedurally unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir.
2015). First, we consider whether the district court committed
a significant procedural error, such as failing to consider the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). When imposing a sentence, a district court must
make and place on the record an individualized assessment based
on the particular facts of the case. United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 328, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
While the sentencing court must state in open court the
particular reasons that support its chosen sentence, the court’s
explanation need not be exhaustive. United States v. Avila, 770
F.3d 1100, 1107–08 (4th Cir. 2014); see also United States v.
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006) (recognizing that a
court need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or discuss every
factor on the record). The court’s explanation must be
2
sufficient “to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has
considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for
exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). “Although every
sentence requires an adequate explanation, a more complete and
detailed explanation of a sentence is required when departing
from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, and a major departure
should be supported by a more significant justification than a
minor one.” United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th
Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). “When imposing a
sentence within the Guidelines, however, the explanation need
not be elaborate or lengthy[.]” Id.
We have reviewed the record and considered the parties’
arguments and find no procedural error in Jalloh’s 37-month
sentence. The district court stated that it considered the
Sentencing Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors and explicitly
discussed why it believed a sentence at the top of Jalloh’s
Guidelines range was sufficient, but not greater than necessary,
to achieve the purposes of sentencing. On this record, we are
satisfied that the district court “considered the parties’
arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own
legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita, 551 U.S. at 356.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
3
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4