Filed: May 29, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4946 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GARY LEE KING, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00361-GRA-2) Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 29, 2014 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4946 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GARY LEE KING, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00361-GRA-2) Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 29, 2014 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4946
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GARY LEE KING, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:13-cr-00361-GRA-2)
Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 29, 2014
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, BLUME NORRIS & FRANKLIN-BEST, LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Max B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Lee King, Jr., pled guilty, without a plea
agreement, to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012).
The district court sentenced King to the Guidelines sentence of
120 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, King argues that the
district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a
downward variance. Specifically, King contends that his
sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court
provided no indication that it considered his nonfrivolous
argument that incarceration will be more difficult for him than
for other prisoners because he is an amputee. King also avers
that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for procedural and substantive
reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In determining
procedural reasonableness, we consider, among other factors,
whether the district court adequately analyzed the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors and sufficiently explained the selected
sentence.
Id.
In explaining its sentence, the district court is not
required to “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every
subsection, particularly when imposing a within-Guidelines
2
sentence.” United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir.
2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “[w]here the
defendant or prosecutor presents nonfrivolous reasons for
imposing a different sentence than that set forth in the
advisory Guidelines, a district judge should address the party’s
arguments and explain why he has rejected those arguments.”
United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Such an explanation is
necessary to “promote the perception of fair sentencing” and to
permit “meaningful appellate review.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.
It may be possible, however, for an appellate court to
evaluate from “[t]he context surrounding a district court’s
explanation . . . both whether the court considered the
§ 3553(a) factors and whether it did so properly.” United
States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 381 (4th Cir. 2006).
Where the record clearly reveals that the court considered the
parties’ arguments and relevant evidence and the case is
“conceptually simple,” the law does not require the court “to
write more extensively.” Rita v. United States,
551 U.S. 338,
359 (2007).
Although King correctly notes that the district
court’s explanation is devoid of any reference to his argument
regarding the difficulty of imprisonment for amputees, the
record provides enough context for this court to confidently
3
conclude that the district court considered King’s argument. In
any event, the court analyzed the § 3553(a) factors before
imposing sentence and we can find no indication in the record
that the court would have imposed a different sentence had it
more explicitly considered King’s argument regarding the
difficulty of imprisonment for amputees. See United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 585 (4th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that
an error is harmless if “it did not have a substantial and
injurious effect or influence on the result” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
Having found no significant procedural error, we next
consider the substantive reasonableness of King’s sentence,
“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We apply a presumption on appeal that
King’s Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. United
States v. Yooho Weon,
722 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013). Such a
presumption may rebutted only by a showing “that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.”
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 379 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
We conclude that King has failed to make such a
showing. Far from ignoring King’s special needs when imposing
sentence, the court honored counsel’s request to house King in a
medical facility.
4
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5
