United States v. David Salter , 580 F. App'x 215 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4988
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID VICTOR SALTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Stephanie D.
Thacker, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation. (1:13-cr-00216-
SDT-1)
Submitted: July 22, 2014 Decided: August 1, 2014
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Andrew C. Cochran, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Victor Salter appeals the fifty-one-month
sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty
pleas to bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2012), and
Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2012). On appeal,
Salter’s sole contention is that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “an
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). Where, as here, there is no allegation of
significant procedural error, we review the sentence for
substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality
of the circumstances.” Id. If the sentence is within or below
the Guidelines range, we presume on appeal that the sentence is
reasonable. United States v. Weon, 722 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir.
2013).
We conclude that Salter has failed to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-
Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445
F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006). The district court took into
account all of the factors identified by Salter on appeal and
weighed them according to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors. The court concluded that the seriousness of the
offense conduct, while mitigated by the unique circumstances of
2
Salter’s personal history, warranted a within-Guidelines
sentence. Salter has not shown that in making this
determination the district court improperly weighed the
§ 3553(a) factors. Therefore, his sentence is substantively
reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3