United States of America v. Stephon Trevor Ellis

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4053
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHON TREVOR ELLIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (2:20-cr-00030-D-1)
Submitted: March 29, 2022 Decided: March 31, 2022
Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief
Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. G. Norman Acker, III, Acting 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Stephon Trevor Ellis pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to possession of a
firearm and ammunition as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The
district court sentenced Ellis to 90 months’ imprisonment, toward the low end of his
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Ellis argues that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly
outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see United States v. Blue, 877
F.3d 513, 517 (4th Cir. 2017). This review requires consideration of both the procedural
and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Blue, 877 F.3d at 517. We have confirmed
that Ellis’ sentence is procedurally reasonable. See United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d
213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019).
In assessing substantive reasonableness, we consider “the totality of the
circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. A sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary,” to satisfy the statutory purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). “Any
sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
[substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United
States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
Ellis argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because mitigating
factors such as his difficult childhood, mental health issues, history of substance abuse, and

-- 2 of 3 --

3
desire to turn his life around warranted a lower sentence. However, the district court
considered these factors and recommended mental health treatment, substance abuse
treatment, and educational and vocational training. The court carefully balanced Ellis’
personal history and characteristics with the seriousness of the crime, the need for
deterrence, the need to promote respect for the law, and the need to incapacitate Ellis. Our
review convinces us that the district court carefully evaluated the § 3553(a) factors and
gave due consideration to Ellis’ mitigating arguments when imposing a sentence toward
the low end of the Guidelines range. Thus, Ellis’ sentence is substantively reasonable, and
Ellis has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his sentence.
Accordingly, we 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

-- 3 of 3 --