The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a criminal conviction against Robert Lee Strother in an unpublished opinion issued January 6, 2026, following oral arguments held October 24, 2025.
The three-judge panel consisting of Judges Wilkinson, Richardson, and Heytens unanimously upheld the lower court's decision. Judge Toby Heytens wrote the opinion, which was joined by both Judge Wilkinson and Judge Richardson.
The case, *United States v. Robert Lee Strother* (No. 24-4291), originated from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Greenville, where District Judge James C. Dever III presided over the initial proceedings. The underlying criminal case was filed as 4:20-cr-00119-D-1.
While the complete details of the Fourth Circuit's reasoning are not fully available in the partial court document, the opinion appears to center on sentencing guidelines and judicial discretion in criminal cases. Judge Heytens referenced the precedent established in *United States v. Evans* (4th Cir. 2008), which addressed circumstances when district courts provide multiple independent rationales for deviating from recommended sentencing guidelines.
According to the *Evans* precedent cited in the opinion, "when a district court offers two or more independent rationales for its deviation from the sentencing range recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines, an appellate court cannot hold the sentence unreasonable if the appellate court finds fault with just one of these rationales." Judge Heytens noted that "that principle resolves this appeal," suggesting the district court had provided multiple valid reasons for its sentencing decision.
The legal representation included Ryan M. Prescott of Prescott Law, PLLC, from Winterville, Georgia, who argued on behalf of the appellant Strother. The government was represented by Sarah Elizabeth Nokes from the Office of the United States Attorney in Raleigh, North Carolina, who argued for the appellee.
Additional government counsel listed on the brief included United States Attorney Michael F. Easley Jr., Assistant United States Attorney David A. Bragdon, and Assistant United States Attorney Kristine L. Fritz, all from the Office of the United States Attorney in Raleigh, North Carolina.
The decision was issued as an unpublished opinion, which means it does not establish binding precedent within the Fourth Circuit. The court document specifically notes that "unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit." This distinction is significant in federal appellate practice, as unpublished opinions typically address case-specific issues rather than establishing broader legal principles.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over federal appeals from district courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. The court regularly issues both published and unpublished opinions, with published opinions carrying precedential value for future cases within the circuit.
The timing of the case shows the typical appellate process timeline, with the original criminal case filed in 2020, the appeal proceeding through 2024 and 2025, and the final decision issued in early 2026. This reflects the often lengthy process of federal criminal appeals, particularly when they involve complex sentencing issues.
Sentencing appeals in federal court often involve challenges to the district court's application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which provide a framework for determining appropriate sentences in federal criminal cases. The guidelines were made advisory rather than mandatory by the Supreme Court's decision in *United States v. Booker* (2005), giving district judges more discretion in sentencing decisions.
The reference to *Evans* suggests this case involved questions about the reasonableness of a sentence that deviated from the guidelines range. Federal appellate courts review sentences for reasonableness, examining both the procedural aspects of how the sentence was imposed and the substantive question of whether the sentence is appropriate given the circumstances.
The affirmance means that whatever sentence was originally imposed by District Judge Dever will stand. Strother's conviction and sentence remain in effect, and absent further appeal to the Supreme Court, the case has reached its conclusion in the federal court system.
While the specific charges and sentence details are not available from the partial document, the case represents another example of the Fourth Circuit's oversight of federal criminal sentencing practices and its application of established precedents governing judicial discretion in sentencing decisions.