United States v. Reginald Bullock , 586 F. App'x 137 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4480
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD EARL BULLOCK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00408-TDS-1)
Submitted: November 24, 2014 Decided: December 4, 2014
Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Greg Davis, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Stephen T.
Inman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Earl Bullock appeals his sentence after
pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012). On
appeal, Bullock contends that his sentence is unreasonable
because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). We affirm.
We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness using
an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. McManus, 734
F.3d 315, 317 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). Because Bullock does not point out any
procedural improprieties in his sentence, we limit our review to
its substantive reasonableness. See United States v. Wallace,
515 F.3d 327, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2008). We presume a sentence
within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is
substantively reasonable. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278,
289 (4th Cir. 2012). The presumption can only be rebutted by
showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
We have reviewed the record and Bullock’s arguments,
and we conclude that his sentence is substantively reasonable.
“[D]istrict courts have extremely broad discretion when
determining the weight to be given [to] each of the § 3553(a)
2
factors.” United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir.
2011). The district court correctly calculated that Bullock’s
Guidelines range was 57 to 71 months and reasonably determined
that a 63-month sentence in the middle of the range was
appropriate in this case in light of his arguments and the
§ 3553(a) factors. Based on a totality of the circumstances, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion,
and we accord deference to its sentencing decisions. See United
States v. Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 106 (4th Cir. 2012).
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