United States v. Douglas Mark Gilbert ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4165
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DOUGLAS MARK GILBERT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00296-TDS-1)
Submitted: October 14, 2015 Decided: October 22, 2015
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Anand P.
Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Mark Gilbert pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to possessing child pornography, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2) (2012). On appeal, Gilbert
challenges the district court’s imposition of a 15-year term of
supervised release as substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
This court reviews a sentence’s reasonableness under “a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The sentence imposed must be
“sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the
purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). We apply a
presumption of reasonableness on appeal to a within-Guidelines-
range sentence. United States v. Helton, 782 F.3d 148, 151 (4th
Cir. 2015) (affirming substantive reasonableness of lifetime
term of supervised release in possession of child pornography
appeal). “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing
that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the
§ 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295,
306 (4th Cir.) cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that Gilbert’s
sentence was substantively reasonable. His term of supervised
release fell within his Guidelines range and was well below the
lifetime term of supervised release advocated by the Government
and probation office. The court weighed the seriousness of the
2
offense, Gilbert’s criminal history, his need for substance
abuse and sex offender treatment, and his age in assigning this
term, and Gilbert has not rebutted its substantive
reasonableness.
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3