Sidney Arnaz Baker appeals his eight-month sentence
following a guilty plea to theft of Government funds, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (2006). On appeal, Baker argues
that the district court committed procedural error by failing to
specifically address his argument regarding the need to avoid
unwarranted sentencing disparities pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(6). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Baker preserved his claim of error “[b]y drawing
arguments from § 3553 for a sentence different than the one
ultimately imposed.” United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578
(4th Cir. 2010). Therefore, any error must lead to reversal,
“unless we conclude that the error was harmless.” Id. at 581.
A district court commits procedural sentencing error by “failing
to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range,
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
§ 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
“Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above,
below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on the
record an individualized assessment based on the particular
facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).