MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES R. SPENCER, Senior District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant/Appellant Tito A. Coleman's Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Decision to the District Court (ECF No. 20). On January 12, 2016, Coleman noted his appeal from the December 30, 2015 Judgment issued by the Honorable David J. Novak, United States Magistrate Judge, which sentenced Coleman to 8 months' imprisonment, 1 year of supervised release, and a $25 Special Assessment (ECF No. 19). On February 16, 2016, Coleman filed his brief in support of his appeal (ECF No. 26), and on February 27, 2016, the United States filed a brief in response (ECF No. 27). Coleman has not filed a reply brief, and the time to do so has expired. Coleman's appeal presents the following issue: "Whether the sentence imposed was procedurally and substantively reasonable under the circumstances?" (Coleman Appeal Br. 1.)

The Court dispenses with oral argument because the materials before it adequately present the facts and legal contentions, and argument would not aid the decisional process. The Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 58(g)(2)(B).1 For the reasons that follow, the Court will affirm the magistrate judge's findings and the sentence imposed.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 3, 2015, the United States filed a two-count criminal information against Coleman alleging: (1) driving a vehicle with a suspended license, second offense in ten years, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13, assimilating Va. Code § 46.2-301 (Count One); and (2) driving 62 miles per hour in a posted 45-mile per hour zone, in violation of 32 C.F.R. § 634.25(t), assimilating Va. Code§ 46.2-878 (Count Two).2 On October 16, 2015, Coleman pleaded guilty to Count One, which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 12 months. The Court dismissed Count Two. The magistrate judge then scheduled a sentencing hearing for December 29, 2015.

Prior to the sentencing hearing, both parties submitted sentencing positions (ECF Nos. 11, 13) and agreed that, based on an Offense Level of 4 and Coleman's Criminal History Category of VI, the applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines (the "Guidelines") range for the conviction was 6 to 12 months. Coleman requested a sentence of a fine or a period of probation. The United States requested a period of incarceration within the applicable Guidelines range.

At the sentencing hearing, Coleman's counsel acknowledged that the Guidelines range should serve as the starting point for the magistrate judge's consideration. (Sentencing Transcript 14:2-7, ECF No. 26.) Coleman's counsel, nonetheless, requested a downward variance. (Id. 23:14-15.) After Coleman spoke, the magistrate judge discussed Coleman's criminal history, concluding that Coleman's record "is recidivism at its ultimate." (Id. 27:21-22.) The magistrate judge then proceeded to discuss the 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) factors:

(Id. 27:23-29:6.) The magistrate judge's above discussion of the § 3553(a) factors supplemented earlier conversation between the magistrate judge and Coleman's counsel, in which the magistrate judge commented extensively on Coleman's "significant" criminal history. The magistrate judge ultimately sentenced Coleman to 8 months' imprisonment, 1 year of supervised release, and a $25 Special Assessment.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 58(g)(2)(B), a defendant may appeal a magistrate judge's judgment of conviction or sentence to a district judge within fourteen days of its entry. "The scope of the appeal is the same as in an appeal to the court of appeals from a judgment entered by a district judge." Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(g)(2)(D). Thus, in reviewing a judgment of conviction entered by a magistrate judge, a "district court utilizes the same standards of review applied by a court of appeals in assessing a district court conviction," rather than conducting a "trial de nova." United States v. Bursey, 416 F.3d 301, 305 (4th Cir. 2005).

A district judge should affirm a sentence imposed by a magistrate judge unless it is unreasonable or resulted from a significant procedural error. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (describing the standard of review by a court of appeals of a sentence by a district judge); United States v. Riley, 991 F.2d 120, 126 (4th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 949 (1993). Procedural errors include "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-including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range." United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 363 (4th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).

Absent a significant procedural error, the Court must assess the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. See id. A "deferential abuse-of-discretion standard" applies to "any sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range." United States v. Savillon-Matute, 636 F.3d 119, 122 (4th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). As the Supreme Court of the United States has cautioned, "[t]he fact that the [reviewing] court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court." Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

III. DISCUSSION

Coleman challenges both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The Court addresses these arguments seriatim.

A. Procedural Reasonableness

The magistrate judge's sentence in this case was not procedurally unreasonable. Coleman argues that the magistrate judge's sentence places too much emphasis on his criminal history, "to the exclusion of any other consideration." (Coleman Appeal Br. 11.) This argument misses the mark with respect to what constitutes a sentencing court's failure to either consider the § 3553(a) factors or adequately explain the chosen sentence.

After properly calculating the advisory guideline range and giving the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, a magistrate "judge should then consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by a party."3 Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50. That said, sentencing courts are "not required to provide a lengthy explanation or `robotically tick through § 3353(a)'s every subsection.'" United States v. Chandia, 675 F.3d 329, 341 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir. 2011)). In fact, "[t]o establish the reasonableness of a sentence, a district court need not explicitly discuss every§ 3553(a) factor on the record." United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). "This is particularly the case when the district court imposes a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range." Id. Further, a sentencing court may reasonably give more weight to one of the § 3553(a) factors when fashioning a sentence. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 476 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 59; Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 100-01 (2007)).

Here, the transcript of the sentencing hearing demonstrates that the magistrate judge at least considered-and functionally addressed-each sentencing factor. First, the magistrate judge listened to Coleman's counsel's argument regarding the requested variance and engaged in active conversation throughout the duration of the hearing. (Sentencing Transcript 13-23.) In doing so, the magistrate judge necessarily highlighted the factors he deemed integral to the imposition of Coleman's sentence. The magistrate judge specifically discussed the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities, the nature and circumstances of Coleman's offense, and-most notably-Coleman's history and characteristics.

Second, although not required, the magistrate judge actually referenced each sentencing factor in a factor-by-factor fashion when providing a statement of reasons. See Johnson, 445 F.3d at 345 (noting that, especially where the sentence falls within the Guidelines range, a district court need not explicitly discuss every sentencing factor on the record). While the magistrate judge's reasoning was, at times, terse, a lengthy explanation was not required with respect to each§ 3553(a) factor. Chandia, 675 F.3d at 341 (explaining that a lengthy explanation need not be given for each factor). Moreover, although Coleman takes issue with the weight given by the magistrate judge to Coleman's criminal history, the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion when affording one of the sentencing factors more weight than the others. See Pauley, 511 F.3d at 476 (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 59; Kimbrough, 552 U.S. at 100-01). Finally, the Court cannot gather from the record, as Coleman suggests, that the magistrate judge's assessment was not individualized. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) ("When rendering a sentence, the district court `must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.'" (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50)). Indeed, the magistrate judge's consideration of Coleman's extensive criminal history was plainly specific to Coleman and thus only relevant to the case before the Court. Likewise, the conversation between the magistrate judge and Coleman's counsel pertained to Coleman specifically. Accordingly, the magistrate judge's sentence in this case was not procedurally unreasonable.

B. Substantive Reasonableness

The magistrate judge's sentence in this case also was not substantively unreasonable. As articulated above, a "deferential abuse-of-discretion standard" applies to any sentence regardless of where it falls on the Guidelines spectrum. Savillon-Matute, 636 F.3d at 122. More importantly here, "[a]ny sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable." United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). Coleman has the burden of rebutting this presumption of reasonableness, see United States v. Bynum, 604 F.3d 161, 168 (4th Cir. 2010), which can be accomplished only by showing "that the sentence is unreasonable.when measured against the§ 3353(a) factors," United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In spite of this presumption and the significant deference owed to the magistrate judge's sentence, Coleman posits that the sentence imposed was substantively unreasonable. (See Coleman Appeal Br. 13-15.) This argument falters. As discussed earlier, the magistrate judge placed heavy emphasis on Coleman's criminal history and deemed it significant enough to warrant the imposition of a sentence squarely within the Guidelines range. Critically, even if this Court were to find the magistrate judge's reasoning unpersuasive, "[t]he fact that the [reviewing] court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court." Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Accordingly, the magistrate judge's sentence in this case was not substantively unreasonable.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the Court will affirm the magistrate judge's findings and the sentence imposed, and Coleman's Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Decision to the District Court will be denied (ECF No. 20).