United States v. Bill Allen , 588 F. App'x 289 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4469
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BILL ALLEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00147-D-1)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bill Allen pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to
two counts of arson within the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 7(3), 81 (2012). The district court sentenced Allen to
concurrent terms of thirty months’ imprisonment, the bottom of
the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Allen timely appeals,
arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable, because
it is greater than necessary to satisfy the purposes of 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012).
We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness,
using “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Because Allen 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. We presume 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). Allen bears the
burden to rebut this presumption “by showing that the sentence
is unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”
Id.
2
Here, the district court reasonably determined that a
sentence of thirty months, at the low end of the Guidelines
range, was appropriate based on its individualized assessment of
Allen’s case in light of his arguments and the § 3553(a)
factors. Under the totality 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