United States v. Lewis , 405 F. App'x 736 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4885
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL K. LEWIS,
Defendant – Appellant,
v.
TERRY MASSEY; CLARETTA TAYLOR; THURMAN SPEIGHT; JANET
SPEIGHT; PHYLLIS HUBBARD; PAULA GORDON,
Movants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:08-cr-00289-DKC-1)
Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. *
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
*
This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Booth M. Ripke, NATHANS & BIDDLE, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Gina L.
Simms, Jonathan Su, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael K. Lewis appeals from his seventy-eight month
sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to wire and
bankruptcy fraud. On appeal, Lewis asserts that his sentence
was unreasonable based upon the district court’s failure to
fully consider and apply the statutory sentencing factors in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Finding no error, we affirm.
A sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion with
the review encompassing both procedural soundness and
substantive reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). The district court is not required to list every
§ 3553(a) factor in fashioning a sentence, see United States v.
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006), and the record
reflects that the court listened to Lewis's arguments and
properly considered both the proffered evidence and the
§ 3553(a) factors.
It is undisputed that Lewis’s sentence was within the
properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range. A sentence
within the Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.
Applying this presumption of reasonableness to Lewis’s sentence,
see United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008), we
conclude that Lewis cannot rebut the presumption of
reasonableness and that his sentence is reasonable. The
district court provided detailed and appropriate reasoning for
3
its chosen sentence, and Lewis’s disagreement with the factors
that the court chose to rely upon does not support a conclusion
that the court abused its discretion.
Accordingly, we affirm Lewis’s sentence and deny his
petition for immediate release. 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