The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a criminal sentence on Tuesday in *United States v. Roy Cox*, despite finding that the lower court made an error in applying federal sentencing guidelines. The published opinion, written by Judge Wilkinson and joined by Judges Richardson and Quattlebaum, represents a significant example of how appellate courts handle sentencing errors when the ultimate punishment remains justified.

Roy Cox, who also goes by the alias "Florida," appealed his sentence from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Wilmington, arguing that Chief District Judge Richard E. Myers II miscalculated his sentencing guidelines range. Specifically, Cox challenged the district court's application of a career offender enhancement, which typically increases the recommended sentence for defendants with multiple prior felony convictions.

The Fourth Circuit agreed that the district court erred in its calculations. "The government does not defend this miscalculation, and we hold that the district court indeed erred in applying the enhancement," Judge Wilkinson wrote in the opinion. This acknowledgment by both the prosecution and the appeals court that an error occurred might typically lead to a reversal and remand for resentencing.

However, the appellate court determined that the error was "entirely harmless." The key factor in this determination was the district court's explicit statement during the original sentencing hearing that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of Cox's career offender status. This judicial indication proved crucial to the Fourth Circuit's analysis, as it demonstrated that the miscalculation did not actually affect the final sentence imposed.

The appeals court also found Cox's sentence to be "substantively reasonable" based on the district court's consideration of factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These factors include the nature of the offense, the defendant's history and characteristics, the need for deterrence, and the goal of providing just punishment. Judge Wilkinson noted that the district court had carefully weighed these considerations in reaching its sentencing decision.

"To reverse and remand would be an impermissible waste of judicial resources," the opinion stated, emphasizing the court's conclusion that the error did not warrant overturning the sentence. This reasoning reflects broader judicial efficiency concerns and the principle that appellate courts should not order new proceedings when the outcome would remain unchanged.

The case originated in the Eastern District of North Carolina, where Cox faced federal criminal charges under case number 7:23-cr-00113-M-KS-1. The specific nature of Cox's underlying criminal conduct was not detailed in the available portion of the appellate opinion, though the career offender enhancement suggests he had multiple prior felony convictions that qualified him for enhanced sentencing under federal guidelines.

Cox was represented on appeal by the Office of the Federal Public Defender, with Jennifer Claire Leisten arguing the case and Federal Public Defender G. Alan DuBois on the brief. The government was represented by the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, with Jake Pugh arguing and Acting United States Attorney Daniel P. Bubar, along with Assistant United States Attorneys David A. Bragdon and Lucy Partain Brown, on the brief.

The case was argued before the Fourth Circuit on Dec. 12, 2025, and decided on Jan. 21, 2026. The relatively quick turnaround from argument to decision suggests the panel found the legal issues straightforward, despite the technical error in the guidelines calculation.

This decision illustrates the "harmless error" doctrine in federal criminal appeals, where courts may affirm convictions or sentences despite procedural mistakes when those errors did not affect the outcome. The doctrine serves judicial efficiency by preventing unnecessary retrials or resentencing proceedings when the result would remain the same.

The Fourth Circuit's ruling also demonstrates how federal judges' statements during sentencing proceedings can be crucial for appellate review. When trial judges clearly indicate their reasoning and alternative approaches they might take, it provides appellate courts with guidance on whether errors actually influenced the final judgment.

For practitioners in federal criminal law, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of creating a clear record during sentencing proceedings. District courts that explicitly state their reasoning and indicate what sentence they would impose under different circumstances provide stronger foundations for appellate review, potentially saving both prosecution and defense resources if appeals arise.

The published nature of this opinion means it will serve as binding precedent within the Fourth Circuit, which covers federal courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. The decision reinforces that technical sentencing guideline errors, while serious, will not automatically result in remand when the ultimate sentence remains justified under the law.