United States of America v. George Perry

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4644
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GEORGE PERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (4:23-cr-00026-RCY-LRL-1)
Submitted: July 1, 2025 Decided: October 8, 2025
Before GREGORY, THACKER, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Nia Ayanna Vidal, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE
OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica
D. Aber, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Eric M. Hurt, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News,
Virginia; Alexandra Michalak, Third Year Law Student, WILLIAM & MARY LAW
SCHOOL, Williamsburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
George Perry appeals the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
five counts of distributing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).
He argues that the sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed
to adequately explain it and did not address his mitigating arguments. We affirm.
“We review the procedural reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-
of-discretion standard.” United States v. Shields, 126 F.4th 356, 360 (4th Cir. 2025)
(internal quotation marks omitted). As relevant here, a sentence is procedurally
unreasonable when the district court “fails to explain the sentence adequately . . . [or] fails
to address the defendant’s nonfrivolous arguments.” United States v. Sueiro, 59 F.4th 132,
141 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). To satisfy the
explanation requirement, “[a] district court is required to provide an individualized
assessment based on the facts before the court, and to explain adequately the sentence
imposed to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair
sentencing.” United States v. Claybrooks, 90 F.4th 248, 257 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal
quotation marks omitted). As part of the individualized assessment, “the district court must
address or consider all non-frivolous reasons presented for imposing a different sentence
and explain why it has rejected those arguments.” United States v. Davis, 130 F.4th 114,
120 (4th Cir. 2025) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“In determining whether there has been an adequate explanation, we do not evaluate
a court’s sentencing statements in a vacuum.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Rather, we “may discern the [district] court’s rationale from the context surrounding its

-- 2 of 4 --

3
explanation.” United States v. Gaspar, 123 F.4th 178, 183 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal
quotation marks and brackets omitted). Moreover, a “[d]istrict court[] need not spell out
[its] responses to [the] defendant[’s] arguments” provided that the context “make[s] it
patently obvious that the district court found the defendant’s arguments to be
unpersuasive.” United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 782 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal
quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). “Engaging counsel in a discussion about
the merits of an argument in favor of a particular sentence, for example, may be sufficient
to permit a reviewing court to infer that a sentencing court gave specific attention to a
defendant’s argument.” United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the district court imposed an upwardly variant sentence of 48 months’
imprisonment after discussing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and finding that the
Sentencing Guidelines range underrepresented the seriousness of Perry’s criminal history.
We conclude that the district court adequately explained its chosen sentence in light of the
§ 3553(a) factors. The district court acknowledged that Perry had a traumatic childhood
and had made some progress, but it reasoned that his extensive criminal history and
recidivism necessitated a 48-month sentence. Furthermore, while the court did not
explicitly discuss Perry’s arguments that the age and nature of his prior convictions
mitigated their seriousness, the court’s detailed review and assessment of Perry’s criminal
history made clear that it found those arguments unpersuasive. Likewise, in explaining
that the § 3553(a) factors justified the sentence imposed, the court impliedly rejected
Perry’s argument that any deviation from the Guidelines range should comport with a

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Guidelines provision governing certain upward departures. See United States v. Diosdado-
Star, 630 F.3d 359, 365-66 (4th Cir. 2011) (holding that court may deviate from Guidelines
range either through departure or variance and need not “look to whether a departure is
appropriate before varying” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
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 this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --