United States v. Boyd , 404 F. App'x 808 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4508
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINAL MARCELLIUS BOYD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:09-cr-00198-JFA-1)
Submitted: November 5, 2010 Decided: December 15, 2010
Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Katherine E. Evatt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, James C. Leventis, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginal Marcellius Boyd pled guilty to one count of
being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e) (2006). Boyd’s advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range of imprisonment was fifty-seven to
seventy-one months’ imprisonment. The district court sentenced
Boyd to sixty-five months’ imprisonment. Boyd appeals, claiming
the court erred by considering certain conduct prior to imposing
sentence. He has also filed a pro se supplemental brief
claiming there was an error in determining his Criminal History
Category. We affirm.
An appellate court reviews a sentence for
reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Id. This court must assess
whether the district court properly calculated the advisory
guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any
arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained
the selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see United States v. Lynn,
592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). If there is no procedural
error, the appellate court reviews the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the
2
circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its
discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied
the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If the
sentence is within the guidelines range, the court applies a
presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for
within-guidelines sentence).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by considering Boyd’s conduct during the commission
of the offense in determining the within-guidelines sentence.
We further conclude the sentence is reasonable. In addition,
while we grant Boyd’s motion for leave to file a pro se
supplemental brief, we find his issue is without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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