Full Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4167 Doc: 41 Filed: 10/16/2026 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-4167 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCUS KANTRELL JENNINGS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:23-cr-00042-MOC-SCR-1) Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: October 16, 2026 Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: John G. Baker, Federal Public Defender, Megan C. Hoffman, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Russ Ferguson, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4167 Doc: 41 Filed: 10/16/2026 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Marcus Kantrell Jennings pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Jennings below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to 120 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Jennings challenges the district court’s calculation of his Guidelines range, arguing that the court did not make sufficient findings to support its application of the cross-reference to attempted first-degree murder, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A2.1 (2023), and that the court should have applied the aggravated assault Guideline, because he acted in the heat of passion. Even if the court made the Guidelines error Jennings alleges, we conclude that such error is harmless. We therefore affirm. A Guidelines error is harmless—and, thus, does not warrant reversal—if “(1) the district court would have reached the same result even if it had decided the Guidelines issue the other way, and (2) the sentence would be reasonable even if the Guidelines issue had been decided in the defendant’s favor.” United States v. Mills, 917 F.3d 324, 330 (4th Cir. 2019) (citation modified); see United States v. McDonald, 850 F.3d 640, 643 (4th Cir. 2017) (discussing assumed error harmlessness inquiry). Here, the district court explicitly stated that it would have imposed the same sentence even without considering the contested cross- reference in its Guidelines calculation. Because the “court made it abundantly clear that it would have imposed the same sentence . . . regardless of the advice of the Guidelines,” United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 382 (4th Cir. 2014), we conclude that the first prong of the assumed error harmlessness inquiry is satisfied. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4167 Doc: 41 Filed: 10/16/2026 Pg: 3 of 4 Turning to the second prong, we consider whether the sentence is substantively reasonable, taking into account the Guidelines range that would have applied absent the assumed error. Mills, 917 F.3d at 331. To be substantively reasonable, a sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In reviewing a sentence outside the Guidelines range, we “may consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Jennings’s 120-month sentence is 24 months longer than the top of the Guidelines range that would have applied had the court applied a cross-reference to aggravated assault in determining the base offense level. As the district court explained, the sentence is warranted in light of Jennings’s considerable history of assaultive conduct and the seriousness of his offense, in which he argued violently with the victim, then retrieved a gun from his car before returning and opening fire on the victim, resulting in significant permanent injuries to the victim and a substantial risk of harm to innocent bystanders. The court also acknowledged the mitigating factors of Jennings’s difficult upbringing and the medical issues resulting from this incident. Based on these factors, we conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable and, consequently, that the purported miscalculation of Jennings’s Guidelines range is harmless. 3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4167 Doc: 41 Filed: 10/16/2026 Pg: 4 of 4 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 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 4