United States of America v. Tamarrius Daques Shorter

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4535
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TAMARRIUS DAQUES SHORTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00224-BO-1)
Submitted: August 16, 2022 Decided: September 14, 2022
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Joshua B. Howard, GAMMON, HOWARD & ZESZOTARSKI, PLLC,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney,
David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Tamarrius Daques Shorter pled guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by
a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Shorter to 84
months of imprisonment, and he now appeals. We affirm.
On appeal, Shorter challenges the procedural reasonableness of his sentence,
arguing that the district court failed to adequately explain the sentence and respond to
Shorter’s arguments in mitigation at sentencing. A criminal sentence is procedurally
unreasonable if the district court commits a “significant procedural error,” such as
“improperly calculating the [Sentencing] Guidelines range, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United
States v. Williams, 5 F.4th 500, 505 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 625 (2021). “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. Lewis, 958 F.3d
240, 243 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). While a sentence within the
Guidelines range requires less explanation than one outside that range, in reviewing a
district court’s sentencing rationale, we “cannot rely on the mere fact that the sentence falls
within the Guidelines range.” Id.
Moreover, during sentencing, 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. Webb, 965 F.3d 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2020)
(cleaned up). “The explanation is sufficient if it, although somewhat briefly, outlines the

-- 2 of 4 --

3
defendant’s particular history and characteristics not merely in passing or after the fact, but
as part of its analysis of the statutory factors and in response to defense counsel’s
arguments.” United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 782 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation
marks omitted). When the court has fully addressed the defendant’s “central thesis” in
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. 2020). Ultimately, “[t]he
adequacy of the sentencing court’s explanation depends on the complexity of each case
and the facts and arguments presented.” United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151
(4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Generally, we review a criminal sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Williams, 5 F.4th at 505. However, “when a party does not
preserve an argument in the district court, we review only for plain error.” United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010). Here, as Shorter did not request a sentence
different than that imposed by the district court, our review is for plain error. See id. at 578
(“By drawing arguments from § 3553(a) for a sentence different than the one ultimately
imposed, an aggrieved party sufficiently alerts the district court of its responsibility to
render an individualized explanation addressing those arguments, and thus preserves its
claim.”).
“To establish plain error, [Shorter] must show that an error occurred, that the error
was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights.” United States v. Muhammad,
478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Even if Shorter satisfies these requirements, “correction
of the error remains within our discretion, which we should not exercise unless the error

-- 3 of 4 --

4
seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.
(cleaned up). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the district court
did not plainly err in sentencing Shorter. See United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d 388, 395
(4th Cir. 2011) (finding no plain error when defendant obtained within-Guidelines sentence
that counsel requested).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 --