The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4414
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
EUGENE A. BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00015-JPJ-PMS-1)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeline
Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Kevin L.
Jayne, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene A. Brown appeals from his eighty-four-month
sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to being an inmate
in a federal prison possessing marijuana, conspiracy to be an
inmate in a federal prison possessing marijuana, possession of
marijuana with the intent to distribute, and conspiracy to
possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. On appeal,
Brown argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable due
to the application of the career offender sentencing guideline
and the severity of the sentence. We affirm.
We review any criminal sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” for
reasonableness, “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir.
2012); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Where, as here, the defendant does not challenge the procedural
reasonableness of his sentence, we review the sentence only for
substantive reasonableness, applying the abuse-of-discretion
standard. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d
572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). “Any sentence that is within or below
a properly calculated [Sentencing] Guidelines range is
presumptively [substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption
can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
2
[2012] factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306
(4th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
421 (2014).
We conclude that Brown’s sentence is substantively
reasonable. The district court did not consider the Guidelines
to be mandatory and the application of the career offender
guideline does not, in and of itself, rebut the presumption that
the sentence is reasonable. The district court responded to
defense counsel’s arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence
meaningfully and with specificity, and explained its chosen
sentence. Furthermore, Brown presents no evidence to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness applicable to his
within-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
3