of his criminal history and likelihood of reoffending. Currie notes that most of his prior convictions were remote and that he has demonstrated both a decrease in criminal behavior since 1990 and a decrease in violent conduct since 2006. However, the vast majority of Currie’s adult life has been spent in prison, undermining his argument that his reduction in criminal convictions during this period is indicative of reduced criminality. Notably, Currie’s dozens of institutional would impose the same sentence as a variance sentence, even if it erred in its Guidelines calculations or application of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a). And although Currie identified nonfrivolous mitigating factors in support of a lower sentence, see, e.g., United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 532-33 (4th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>), we cannot conclude, in view of the totality
holding as a matter of law that a child of the tender age of 3 years and 8 months could not have realized the risk or danger of an artificial body of water holding that adea plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie case of age discrimination when he was replaced by someone only two years younger and within the protected age group and there was no other evidence of age discriminatory motive recognizing reduced culpability in youthful offenders and inverse correlation between inmates age and risk of recidivism holding that a statement of fact relating to the plaintiffs age was not direct evidence of age discrimination because the relevance of the comment is provided by inference holding age discrimination claim barred