United States v. Christopher Miller , 590 F. App'x 252 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4592
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER E. MILLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:14-cr-00043-GRA-1)
Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora Blanchard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, William J. Watkins, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher E. Miller pled guilty to possession of
child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2) (2012).
At Miller’s sentencing hearing, his attorney requested a
sentence below the advisory Guidelines range of 97-121 months’
imprisonment. The judge rejected Miller’s request and sentenced
him to a 97-month term. He appeals, arguing that the district
court failed to adequately provide an individualized reason as
to why it rejected his request for a below-Guidelines sentence.
We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 46 (2007). This review requires appellate consideration of
both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a
sentence. Id. After determining whether the district court
properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range,
this court must then consider whether the district court
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, analyzed any
arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained
the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–50; see Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346–47 (2007); United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Finally, we review
the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “taking into
account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent
2
of any variance from the Guidelines range.” United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). This court applies a presumption
of correctness to a sentence within the properly-calculated
Guidelines range. Rita, 551 U.S. at 346–47.
Here, the district court correctly calculated Miller’s
Guidelines range and, after hearing his arguments for a below-
Guidelines sentence, imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 97
months. We find that the district court’s explanation was
sufficient to show that the court conducted the sort of
individualized sentencing analysis required under Gall and
Carter. Moreover, Miller has failed to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence.
Therefore, we find that Miller’s sentence is reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm Miller’s sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3