United States v. Carlos Sinclair , 689 F. App'x 173 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4464
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS MAURICE SINCLAIR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00309-BO-1)
Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: May 11, 2017
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Sinclair pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012). Sinclair appeals his sentence, arguing that it
is substantively unreasonable. This court reviews a defendant’s sentence “under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
Because Sinclair does not assert any procedural sentencing error, we review only the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, considering “the totality of the circumstances
to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it
chose satisfied the standards set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)].” United States v.
Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 383 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is
presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
“Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. We conclude that Sinclair
fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his below-Guidelines sentence.
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
2