US v. Anthony Sering, No. 14-4281 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4281 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY SERING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00153-ELH-1) Submitted: December 22, 2014 Decided: January 7, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, A. David Copperthite, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Sering appeals the 135-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012). On appeal, Sering contends that his sentence is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm. Because Sering argued for a sentence different than the sentence imposed by the district court, we review reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. for United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). In reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the district court did not commit any “significant procedural error,” such as failing to properly calculate the applicable Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. district court is not required § 3553(a)’s every subsection.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. to “robotically tick The through United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). However, the district court “must place on the record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular facts of the case before it. This individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at 2 hand and United adequate States v. to permit Carter, ‘meaningful 564 F.3d 325, appellate 330 (4th review.’” Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (internal citation and footnote omitted)). We conclude that the district court’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. Our review of the sentencing hearing transcript the reveals that district court considered the § 3553(a) factors in finding that a within-Guidelines sentence was appropriate and provided an adequate explanation for the sentence imposed. that the court Further, it is apparent from the transcript did not ignore or reject Sering’s mitigating arguments. Once committed no reasonableness we have determined procedural of the error, sentence, totality of the circumstances.” sentence imposed “must be we that the consider “tak[ing] district the substantive into account Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. sufficient, but not greater necessary,” to satisfy the purposes of sentencing. § 3553(a). Guidelines court the The than 18 U.S.C. If the sentence imposed is within the appropriate range, we consider it presumptively reasonable. United States v. Yooho Weon, 722 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013). The presumption may be rebutted by a showing “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” 3 United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court recognized the necessity to impose a sentence that was sufficient but not greater than necessary to serve the purposes of sentencing, and it balanced Sering’s personal circumstances with the other § 3553(a) factors to arrive at the 135-month sentence. Given the district court’s broad discretion in balancing the § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. conclude Jeffery, that 631 Sering F.3d has 669, not 679 overcome (4th the Cir. 2011), we presumption of reasonableness afforded to the within-Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
