United States v. Bobby Batts , 519 F. App'x 135 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4334
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BOBBY JULIAN BATTS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00209-FL-1)
Submitted: March 19, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Cohen, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas
G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Julian Batts appeals the 303–month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to being a convicted felon in
possession of one or more firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2006). On appeal, Batts argues that the
district court’s upward departure resulted in a substantively
unreasonable sentence. We reject this argument and affirm.
We review any criminal sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” for
reasonableness, “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 216 (2012); see Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). When the district court imposes a
departure or variance sentence, “we consider whether the
sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its
decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to the
extent of the divergence from the sentencing range.” United
States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 (4th Cir.
2007). The district court “has flexibility in fashioning a
sentence outside of the Guidelines range,” and need only “‘set
forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that it has
considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis’” for
its decision. United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 364
(4th Cir.) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356
2
(2007)) (alteration omitted), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2946(2011).
Where, as here, the defendant does not challenge the
procedural reasonableness of his sentence, * we review only the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, applying the abuse-
of-discretion standard. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). In doing so, this
court assesses “whether the District Judge abused his discretion
in determining that the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors
supported [the sentence] and justified a substantial deviation
from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 56. We must
“take into account the totality of the circumstances, including
the extent of [the] variance from the Guidelines range.” Id. at
51. A more significant “departure should be supported by a more
significant justification.” Id. at 50.
Batts argues that, in light of his serious medical
conditions, which are undisputed, the district court abused its
discretion and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence by
upwardly departing based on the under-representation of his
criminal history. We disagree. Despite Batts’ assertion to the
contrary, our review of the record confirms that the district
*
Indeed, appellate counsel concedes that there is no basis
for challenging the procedural reasonableness of Batts’
sentence.
3
court did indeed factor Batts’ health conditions into the
sentencing calculus, but simply rejected the argument that they
warranted a reduced sentence. Instead, the court reasoned that
the 303-month departure sentence was justified by Batts’
protracted history of violence; Batts’ chronic recidivism, which
was unabated despite his medical conditions; and the need for
the sentence to protect the public, deter future criminality,
and promote respect for the law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),
(a)(2)(A)-(C).
On this record, we discern no basis on which to
conclude that the court abused its discretion by either
departing upward or as to the extent of that departure. Rather,
the district court’s upward departure decision “reflects a
thorough, individualized assessment of [Appellant’s] situation,
in light of the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Rivera–
Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct.
274 (2012). Accordingly, we hold the sentence is substantively
reasonable and affirm the district court’s criminal 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
4