United States v. Figuried

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5130
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONE FIGURIED, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00105-NCT-1)
Submitted: August 21, 2009 Decided: October 1, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Carlyle Sherrill, III, SHERRILL & CAMERON, PLLC, Salisbury,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United
States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antone Figuried, Jr., pled guilty to being in
possession of a firearm while subject to a domestic-violence
protective order, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(8),
924(a)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced him to twenty-
four months in prison. On appeal, Figuried raises one issue,
arguing that the district court erred by sentencing him without
taking into account Figuried’s presentence jail time on both
related and unrelated state charges. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, __,
128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). This review requires appellate
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. 128 S. Ct. at 597. After
determining whether the district court properly calculated the
defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, we must assess whether
the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 596-97.
Finally, we review the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, “taking into account the totality of the
circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range.” United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473
(4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
On appeal, Figuried claims the district court erred by
not considering approximately six months Figuried spent in state
custody on related charges, as well as additional time Figuried
spent incarcerated on unrelated state charges before he was
taken into federal custody. Figuried concedes that the district
court was not required to give him actual credit for this time,
but says the district court erred by not including the time
among its consideration of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
The Government responds that the calculation of jail credit is
committed to the Bureau of Prisons; therefore, the district
court did not err in failing to consider Figuried’s presentence
incarceration. We find that the relevant authority supports the
Government’s position. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S.
329, 333-34 (1992) (assigning calculation of jail credit under
18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (2006) to Bureau of Prisons, not district
court). Therefore, the district court did not impose an
unreasonable sentence, procedurally or substantively, because of
its decision not to shorten Figuried’s federal sentence based on
his presentence jail time in state custody on state charges. 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
3