United States v. Takai Roe

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-4425
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4425 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4425

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TAKAI TERRELL ROE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:24-cr-00027-TDS-1)

Submitted: April 24, 2025 Decided: April 28, 2025

Before RICHARDSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Ira Knight, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4425 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Takai Terrell Roe pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(8). The district court sentenced Roe to 44 months’

imprisonment. On appeal, Roe argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

because it is greater than necessary to address the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 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); United States v. Williams, 5 F.4th

500, 505 (4th Cir. 2021). “Substantive-reasonableness review requires us to consider the

totality of the circumstances to determine whether the sentencing court abused its

discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in

§ 3553(a).” United States v. Reed, 58 F.4th 816, 820 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation

marks omitted). “This review is highly deferential” and “should not be overly searching,

because it is not the role of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the

sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence.” United States v. Smith,

75 F.4th 459, 466 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, “[a]ny

sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively

[substantively] reasonable,” and “[s]uch a presumption can only be rebutted by showing

that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors.” United

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4425 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

Roe argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court

did not give adequate weight to his positive history and characteristics, such as his actions

as a caretaker for his younger brother and his history as a mere follower and victim of

circumstance. However, the record demonstrates that the court properly considered the

sentencing factors, as well as the arguments raised by defense counsel, ultimately imposing

a within-Guidelines-range sentence. The court balanced Roe’s personal history and

characteristics with the need to promote respect for the law, the need for specific and

general deterrence, and the need to provide just punishment. The court directly

acknowledged the mitigating nature of Roe’s history and characteristics such as having his

GED and a productive employment history. Ultimately, however, the court determined

that a 44-month sentence was appropriate because Roe possessed a stolen handgun just

months after his release from supervision following a sentence for armed robbery. Given

the “extremely broad discretion” afforded to a district court “when determining the weight

to be given each of the § 3553(a) factors” in imposing sentence, United States v. Jeffery,

631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011), Roe fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness

afforded his within-Guidelines sentence. * Accordingly, we conclude that Roe’s sentence

is substantively reasonable.

* We have confirmed that Roe’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. See United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (“[W]e are required to analyze procedural reasonableness before turning to substantive reasonableness.”).

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4425 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

We therefore affirm the 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