UNITED STATES v. SHERROD (2019)

Murdock Raeford Sherrod appeals the 120-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012). The district court varied upward from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range based on Sherrod’s underrepresented criminal history and the likelihood that he would commit other crimes. On appeal, Sherrod maintains that the 120-month sentence, representing more than double the top of the applicable Guidelines range of 51 months, was substantively unreasonable. In particular, Sherrod argues that the court erred in basing the increased sentence in part on the nature and seriousness of the offense of conviction. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The court “must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error” in imposing the sentence, “such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, ․ failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [2012] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” United States v. Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 100 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the court finds no significant procedural error, it also must evaluate the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, considering the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). The sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the purposes of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

“In reviewing a sentence outside the Guidelines range, we give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” United States v. Zuk, 874 F.3d 398, 409 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). “We must defer to the district court and affirm a reasonable sentence, even if we would have imposed something different.” United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938, 943-44 (4th Cir. 2014).

With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the upward variance sentence. The district court meaningfully considered and explained its sentence and properly applied the § 3553(a) factors. According the appropriate due deference to the sentencing court, we find no error. We therefore affirm the sentence imposed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.