United States v. Ricky Nelson ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-4349
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICKY ALLEN NELSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:19-cr-00187-1)
Submitted: April 8, 2021 Decided: April 28, 2021
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wesley P. Page, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Michael B.
Stuart, United States Attorney, Christopher R. Arthur, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Allen Nelson pled guilty to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The district court imposed a sentence of 30
months’ imprisonment, within the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, followed by 3
years of supervised release. Nelson appeals, arguing that his sentence is procedurally
unreasonable because the court did not adequately consider his nonfrivolous arguments for
a lower sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review Nelson’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 42 (2007). In crafting
an appropriate sentence, the district court must “address the parties’ nonfrivolous
arguments in favor of a particular sentence, and if the court rejects those arguments, it must
explain why in a sufficiently detailed manner to allow this [c]ourt to conduct a meaningful
appellate review.” United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 519 (4th Cir. 2017). “We cannot
assume that a sentencing court truly considered a defendant’s nonfrivolous
arguments . . . when the record fails to make it patently obvious,” id. at 521 (internal
quotation marks omitted), and the court’s failure to give “specific attention” to
nonfrivolous arguments produces a procedurally unreasonable sentence, United States v.
Lewis, 958 F.3d 240, 245 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).
However, “[t]he sentencing court’s explanation need not be extensive,” United
States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 485 (4th Cir. 2018); where the court addresses the
defendant’s “central thesis” for mitigation, it need not “address separately each supporting
data point marshalled on its behalf,” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 214 (4th Cir.
2
2020), cert. denied, No. 20-5825, 2020 WL 6385951 (U.S. Nov. 2, 2020). Furthermore,
we “will not vacate [a] sentence simply because the court did not spell out what the context
of its explanation made patently obvious.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375,
381 (4th Cir. 2006). “The context surrounding a district court’s explanation may imbue it
with enough content” for this court to conclude that the sentencing court gave specific
attention to the defendant’s arguments. Id. We have reviewed the record and conclude
that the district court adequately addressed Nelson’s nonfrivolous sentencing arguments
and made clear the reasons for the term it imposed, so the sentence is procedurally
reasonable.
Therefore, we affirm Nelson’s sentence. 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
3