United States v. Zachary Garrett , 626 F. App'x 433 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4338
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ZACHARY EDWARD GARRETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00456-CCE-1)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Eric L.
Iverson, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Zachary Edward Garrett challenges the reasonableness of the
138-month sentence imposed by the district court following his
conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, for receipt of child
pornography. In imposing the sentence, the district court
departed downward two levels from the appropriately calculated
Guidelines range of 151 to 188 months and imposed a sentence in
the middle of the revised Guidelines range. We affirm.
We “review all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or
significantly outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 41 (2007). Where, as here, the defendant does not assert
procedural sentencing error, we turn our attention to the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, considering “the
totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “Any sentence that
is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is
presumptively [substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption
can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
[(2012)] factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306
(4th Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421(2014). We conclude that Garrett has not met this burden.
Garrett contends that the sentence imposed is greater than
necessary to meet the goals of the sentencing factors, noting
2
that the court stated that Garrett’s history and characteristics
and the need to protect the public weighed in favor of a shorter
sentence. However, the court carefully considered the remaining
§ 3553(a) factors and concluded that the nature and the
seriousness of the offense warranted a longer sentence. We
conclude that the district court adequately explained its
reasons for the sentence imposed and that the below-Guidelines
range sentence imposed is not unreasonable and not an abuse of
discretion. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; Louthian, 756 F.3d at 306
(applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to a sentence
imposed within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines range).
We therefore affirm Garrett’s 138-month sentence. 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