United States v. Parker , 273 F. App'x 283 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4841
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARSHALL JERMAINE PARKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00058-NCT)
Submitted: March 31, 2008 Decided: April 14, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B.
Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marshall Jermaine Parker appeals his 100-month sentence
for possession of a firearm in commerce after a felony conviction,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Parker argues that
his sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary
to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000).
We review the sentence to determine whether it is
reasonable, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007). We presume that a
sentence imposed within the properly calculated sentencing
guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216,
___ (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456,
2462-68 (2007). A district court must explain the sentence it
imposes sufficiently for us to effectively review its
reasonableness, but need not mechanically discuss all the factors
listed in § 3553(a). United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375,
380 (4th Cir. 2006). The court’s explanation should indicate that
it considered the § 3553(a) factors and the arguments raised by the
parties. Id. We do not evaluate the adequacy of the district
court’s explanation “in a vacuum,” but also consider “[t]he context
surrounding a district court’s explanation.” Id. at 381.
The district court imposed a sentence of 100 months’
imprisonment, within the advisory guidelines range of 84 to 105
months’ imprisonment. Parker contends that a sentence of 84
- 2 -
months’ imprisonment, at the low end of the guidelines range, would
have adequately deterred him from future criminal activity and
allowed him to effectively take part in a substance abuse treatment
program. Parker argues that the district court overemphasized his
criminal history and did not adequately consider his cooperation
with authorities or his family background.
Parker has not overcome the presumptive reasonableness of
his sentence within the guidelines range, and the district court
did not abuse its discretion. Although the district court did not
discuss the § 3553(a) factors individually, it stated that it
considered the factors and the arguments raised by the parties in
determining Parker’s sentence. The district court expressly
considered Parker’s argument that a sentence at the high end of the
guidelines range was greater than necessary to have a deterrent
effect, and implicitly considered his arguments for leniency based
upon his timely acceptance of responsibility and his family
background. The court also considered the evidence in the
Presentence Investigation Report, which noted that Parker has
several prior convictions for drug offenses that occurred while he
was on probation, indicating that his previous sentences have not
had a deterrent effect. Accordingly, the district court reasonably
determined within its discretion that Parker’s criminal history and
the nature of the charged offense justified imposing a sentence of
100 months’ imprisonment, slightly below the high end of the
- 3 -
guidelines imprisonment range. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence
imposed by the district court.
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
- 4 -