Criminal: Drug defendant’s challenge to sentence fails

Where the district court adequately explained why it sentenced a man who pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base to 48 months’ imprisonment, its sentence was affirmed.

Background

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.

Analysis

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. This court concludes 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 Guidelines provision governing certain upward departures.

Affirmed.

United States v. Perry, Case No. 23-4644, Oct. 8, 2025. 4th Cir. (per curiam), from EDVA at Newport News (Young). Geremy C. Kamens, Frances H. Pratt and Nia Ayanna Vidal for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, Eric M. Hurt and Alexandra Michalak for Appellee. VLW 025-2-385. 4 pp.