United States v. Kenneth Godsey

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 1, 2025
• Docket: 23-4487
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4487 Doc: 33 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4487

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH ROBERT GODSEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cr-00012-NKM-JCH-1)

Submitted: December 18, 2024 Decided: April 1, 2025

Before HARRIS, RUSHING, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Mary E. Maguire, Federal Public Defender, Erin Trodden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher Kavanaugh, United States Attorney, Joseph Attias, Assistant United States Attorney, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4487 Doc: 33 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Robert Godsey pled guilty to 11 counts of mailing threatening

communications to federal officers and officials, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c). The

district court calculated Godsey’s advisory imprisonment range under the U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual (2021) at 57 to 71 months and sentenced him to 115 months’

imprisonment. On appeal, Godsey contends that his sentence is procedurally and

substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

We “review[] all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside

the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.

Claybrooks, 90 F.4th 248, 257 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“Reasonableness review has procedural and substantive components.” United States v.

Fowler, 58 F.4th 142, 150 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Procedural

reasonableness requires us to ensure that the district court committed no significant

procedural error,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted), which includes improperly

calculating the Guidelines range, insufficiently considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors, or inadequately explaining the selected sentence, United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d

663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020). “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). If we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by committing

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4487 Doc: 33 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 3 of 5

a significant procedural error, we reverse for resentencing unless we conclude that the error

was harmless. United States v. Roy, 88 F.4th 525, 530 (4th Cir. 2023).

“If the sentence is procedurally sound, we then consider its substantive

reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.

Williams, 5 F.4th 500, 510 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A sentence

is substantively unreasonable only where under the totality of the circumstances, the

sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the

standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. Devine, 40 F.4th 139, 153 (4th Cir. 2022)

(internal quotation marks omitted). “Where, as here, the sentence is outside the advisory

Guidelines range, we must consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both

with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to the extent of the

divergence from the sentencing range.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 215 (4th Cir.

2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “That said, district courts have extremely broad

discretion when determining the weight to be given each of the § 3553(a) factors.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). “Instead, we must give due deference to the district

court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.”

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “And variant sentences are generally reasonable

when the reasons justifying the variance are tied to § 3553(a) and are plausible.” United

States v. McKinnie, 21 F.4th 283, 292 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In light of these principles and after review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we

conclude that Godsey fails to establish reversible sentencing error by the district court.

Assuming without deciding that the district court erred in departing under USSG §§ 2A6.1

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4487 Doc: 33 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 4 of 5

cmt. n.4(B) and 4A1.3, p.s., such error was harmless. See McKinnie, 21 F.4th at 289 n.*

(declining to consider appellant’s arguments related to district court’s alternative departure

rationale where variant sentence was procedurally reasonable). The court determined that

a 115-month prison term was warranted as an upward variant sentence in light of the nature

and circumstances of Godsey’s serious offense conduct; his history of mailing threatening

communications commencing when he was in his mid 20s, his multiple prior convictions

and sentencings for the same offense of mailing threatening letters, and his dedicated

recidivism despite being warned by law enforcement to cease and desist sending threat

letters; and the needs for the sentence imposed to promote respect for the law, provide just

punishment, afford deterrence, and protect the public in light of Godsey’s recidivism,

action in sending additional letters not part of his offense conduct, and the likelihood that

he would commit further crimes absent a significant sentence. These reasons are matched

to factors appropriate for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(C). The

district court, we conclude, adequately explained why it imposed the above-Guidelines

prison term.

On substantive unreasonableness, Godsey emphasizes his mental illness and the role

it played in his offense conduct. Nevertheless, the record reflects that the district court

considered Godsey’s request for a 57-month prison term grounded in his mental health

concerns and weighed that request against his offense conduct, longstanding criminal

history, and dedicated pattern of recidivism. Although “reasonable jurists could perhaps

have balanced those competing factors differently and arrived at a different result, we

cannot conclude that this is one of the rare cases where the sentence imposed by the district

4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4487 Doc: 33 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 5 of 5

court was substantively unreasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v.

Abed, 3 F.4th 104, 119 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).

We thus 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