United States v. William Ebenstein , 588 F. App'x 255 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-4510
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    WILLIAM LEE EBENSTEIN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
    District Judge. (1:13-cr-00461-CCE-1)
    Submitted:   December 17, 2014            Decided:   December 19, 2014
    Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS & TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North
    Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
    Anand   P.   Ramaswamy,   Assistant   United States Attorney,
    Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    William   Lee     Ebenstein       appeals      the    downward         variance
    sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to
    receiving     child     pornography,          in     violation         of     18    U.S.C.
    § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1) (2012).                   On appeal, he contends his
    sentence is substantively unreasonable.                   We affirm.
    We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness using
    “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”                          Gall v. United
    States, 
    552 U.S. 28
    , 41 (2007).                    Because Ebenstein asserts no
    procedural     error,     we    consider            whether      the        sentence       is
    substantively reasonable, “tak[ing] into account the totality of
    the   circumstances”     and    giving    due       deference      to       the    district
    court’s   decision.     
    Id. at 51.
          We     presume      on    appeal      that    a
    sentence “within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range
    is [substantively] reasonable.”               United States v. Louthian, 
    756 F.3d 295
    , 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    135 S. Ct. 421
    (2014).
    Ebenstein bears the burden to rebut this presumption “by showing
    that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18
    U.S.C. § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors.”                 
    Id. Here, the
    district court reasonably determined that a
    sentence of 144 months, a seven-month downward variance from the
    low end of the Guidelines range, was appropriate based on its
    thorough, individualized assessment of Ebenstein’s case in light
    of his arguments and the § 3553(a) factors.                      Based on a totality
    2
    of the circumstances, we conclude that the district court did
    not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.
    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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-4510

Citation Numbers: 588 F. App'x 255

Judges: Wilkinson, Agee, Davis

Filed Date: 12/19/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024