United States v. Charles Johnson, II

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 30, 2026
• Docket: 25-4561
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4561 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/30/2026 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4561

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHARLES DANA JOHNSON, II,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (2:25-cr-00027-1)

Submitted: April 28, 2026 Decided: April 30, 2026

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Wesley P. Page, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Rachel E. Zimarowski, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Moore Capito, United States Attorney, Lesley Shamblin, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4561 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/30/2026 Pg: 2 of 4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4561 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/30/2026 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Charles Dana Johnson, II, appeals the 84-month sentence imposed following his

guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(8). On appeal, Johnson argues his sentence is procedurally

unreasonable because the district court did not meaningfully engage with his nonfrivolous

mitigating argument for a lower sentence. We affirm.

We review the reasonableness of a defendant’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

using a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Nixon, 130 F.4th 420,

428 (4th Cir. 2025) (internal quotation marks omitted). We first “evaluate procedural

reasonableness, determining whether the district court committed any procedural error,

such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a)

factors, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United States v. Nance, 957

F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020).

For a sentence to be procedurally reasonable, “a district court must conduct an

individualized assessment of the facts and arguments presented and impose an appropriate

sentence, and it must explain the sentence chosen.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

In doing so, “a 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. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 744 (4th Cir. 2019). A district court satisfies this

requirement “if it, although somewhat briefly, outlines the 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 for a [lower sentence].”

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4561 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/30/2026 Pg: 4 of 4

United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773, 782 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks

omitted). A “district court[] need not spell out [its] responses to [the] defendant[’s]

arguments where context makes them clear. But the context must make it patently obvious

that the district court found the defendant’s arguments to be unpersuasive.” Id. (citation

modified). Upon review, we conclude that the district court adequately explained the

within-Guidelines sentence and sufficiently addressed Johnson’s nonfrivolous arguments

for a lower sentence.

We therefore affirm the criminal 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