United States v. Butler , 432 F. App'x 195 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5124
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STACEY LAMONTE BUTLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00349-NCT-1)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S.
Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stacey Lamonte Butler pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2006). The district court declined to sentence Butler below
his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and imposed a seventy-
month sentence, the bottom of his properly calculated advisory
sentencing range. Butler alleges on appeal that his sentence
was greater than necessary and therefore unreasonable. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we
review a sentence for reasonableness using a deferential abuse-
of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49
(2007). We apply a presumption of reasonableness on appeal to a
within-Guidelines sentence. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 347 (2007); United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th
Cir. 2007). A properly calculated sentence is entitled to a
presumption of reasonableness; a defendant may rebut the
presumption only by demonstrating that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2010) factors. United States v. Montes-
Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006). Because a sentence
imposed within a properly calculated Guidelines range enjoys a
presumption of reasonableness on appeal, United States v. Go,
517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008), an extensive explanation is
2
not required as long as the appellate court is satisfied that
the district court has considered the parties’ arguments and has
a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking
authority. United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 165 (2010).
We find Butler’s sentence was reasonable. The court
correctly calculated Butler’s advisory sentencing range,
reviewed some of the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) factors, and
sentenced him within that range. The court adequately explained
why it declined to impose a below-Guidelines range sentence and
provided a rationale for its sentence. Engle, 592 F.3d at 500;
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, we affirm Butler’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