United States v. Jonathan Layne , 548 F. App'x 89 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4443
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JONATHAN DOUGLAS LAYNE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:12-cr-00209-1)
Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth
Goodwin II, United States Attorney, William Bryan King, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Douglas Layne appeals the district court’s
judgment sentencing him to 120 months’ imprisonment followed by
twenty years’ supervised release for possession of child
pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5), (b)(2)
(2012). On appeal, Layne argues that the term of supervised
release imposed is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
“The length of a term of supervised release is
reviewed for its reasonableness using the same, deferential,
abuse-of-discretion standards used for challenges to any other
part of the defendant’s sentence.” United States v. Collins,
684 F.3d 873, 887 (9th Cir. 2012); see Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We assess the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence under the totality of the
circumstances. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,
216 (4th Cir. 2010). If the sentence is within the Guidelines
range, we presume on appeal that the sentence is substantively
reasonable. United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th
Cir. 2012).
We conclude that Layne’s supervised release term,
which is within the applicable Guidelines range, is not
substantively unreasonable. The district court concluded that a
lengthy term of supervised release was necessary, based on
Layne’s criminal history and sexual proclivities, to protect the
2
public and to deter him from reoffending. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Because the district court acted well within its
considerable discretion in making this finding, we conclude that
Layne has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that
attaches to a within-Guidelines 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 material before this
court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
We have considered Layne’s arguments concerning the impact
of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D1.2(b) (2012), and are
unpersuaded that consideration of the Guideline rendered his
supervised release term unreasonable.
3