US v. Julious Jerome Bullock

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00174-BO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998655754].. [10-5232]

Appeal: 10-5232

Document: 31

Date Filed: 08/16/2011

Page: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5232

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JULIOUS JEROME BULLOCK,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00174-BO-1)

Submitted:

June 23, 2011

Decided:

August 16, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research
and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, Kimberly A. Moore, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-5232

Document: 31

Date Filed: 08/16/2011

Page: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Julious Jerome Bullock appeals his 120-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924
(2006).

On appeal, Bullock contends that the district court

imposed a procedurally and substantively unreasonable sentence.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Although

Bullock

requested

that

the

district

court

consider the fact that he accepted responsibility for his crime,
he did not request any particular sentence or object to the
adequacy of the district court’s explanation for his sentence.
See United

We therefore review the sentence for plain error.
States

v.

Lynn,

establish
made;

plain

(2)

the

592

F.3d

error,
error

substantial rights.”

572,

Bullock
is

578-80
“must

plain;

and

(4th

show:
(3)

Cir.
(1)

the

2010).

an

error

error

To
was

affects

United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337,

342-43 (4th Cir. 2009).
We

begin

by

reviewing

the

sentence

for

significant

procedural error, including such errors as “failing to calculate
(or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the
Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [2006] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence – including an explanation for any deviation from the
2

Appeal: 10-5232

Document: 31

Guidelines
(2007).

Date Filed: 08/16/2011

range.”

Gall

v.

United

Page: 3 of 6

States,

552

U.S.

38,

51

If there are no procedural errors, we then consider the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account
the totality of the circumstances.

United States v. Pauley, 511

F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
“When rendering a sentence, the district court ‘must
make

an

individualized

presented.’”
Cir.

2009)

assessment

based

on

the

facts

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th
(quoting

Gall,

552

U.S.

at

50).

Accordingly,

a

sentencing court must apply the relevant § 3553(a) factors to
the particular facts presented and must “state in open court”
the particular reasons that support its chosen sentence.
The

court’s

explanation

need

not

be

exhaustive;

it

Id.

must

be

“sufficient ‘to satisfy the appellate court that [the district
court] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned
basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.’”
United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).
When, as here, the district court imposes a withinGuidelines

sentence,

extensive,

while

the

still

district

court

individualized,

may

“provide

explanation.”

a

less

United

States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009), cert.
denied, 130 S. Ct. 2128 (2010).

That explanation, however, must

be sufficient to allow for “meaningful appellate review” such
3

Appeal: 10-5232

Document: 31

Date Filed: 08/16/2011

Page: 4 of 6

that the appellate court need “not guess at the district court’s
rationale.”

Carter,

564

F.3d

at

329-30

(internal

quotation

marks omitted).
We

recently

held

that

a

district

court’s

sparse

explanation of its chosen sentence was legally sufficient where
the court (1) determined that the defendant had no objections to
the

findings

and

calculations

set

forth

in

the

presentence

report (“PSR”); (2) explicitly adopted the PSR’s findings and
calculations;

(3) heard

defendant

opportunity

an

considered

the

argument

§ 3553(a)

to

from

counsel;

allocute;

factors;

(5)

(6)

(4)

gave

stated

that

concluded

that

the
it
a

Guidelines sentence accomplished the purposes of § 3553(a); and
(7) imposed the sentence requested by the defendant.

United

States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 272 (4th Cir. 2010).
Based on our review of the record and the sentencing
transcript,
procedural

we

conclude

error

by

that

the

failing

to

district
provide

court

an

individualized

rationale to support Bullock’s 120-month sentence.
552 U.S. at 51; Carter, 564 F.3d at 328.

committed

See Gall,

In contrast to the

court in Hernandez, the district court failed to expressly refer
to

any

of

the

§ 3553(a)

factors

or

find

that

a

sentence accomplished the purposes of § 3553(a).

Guidelines
We further

find that the court’s error was plain.

See Lynn, 592 F.3d at

577

“clear

(plain

errors

are

those

that
4

are

or

obvious”);

Appeal: 10-5232

Document: 31

Date Filed: 08/16/2011

Page: 5 of 6

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 658 (4th Cir. 2007)
(noting that the reasons for a particular sentence are to be
“matched to a factor appropriate for consideration” under 18
U.S.C.

§

3553(a)

and

“clearly

tied

to

[the

defendant’s]

particular situation”).
Bullock, however, fails to establish that a different
sentence

might

provided

a

have

more

been

imposed

lengthy

if

the

district

explanation.

The

court

district

had

court

sentenced Bullock to 120 months of imprisonment, which was both
the Guidelines range and the statutory maximum sentence, and
there

is

district

nothing
court

to

would

suggest
have

that

further

resulted

in

a

discussion
different

by

the

sentence.

Accordingly, we find that Bullock cannot demonstrate that the
district

court’s

explanation

constituted

affected his substantial rights.

plain

error

that

See Hernandez, 603 F.3d at

273; accord Lynn, 592 F.3d at 580.
Finally,

Bullock’s

within-Guidelines

sentence

is

presumptively reasonable on appeal, see Rita, 551 U.S. at 34656; United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008), and
he has failed to rebut that presumption.

See United States v.

Montes-Pineda,

Cir.

445

F.3d

375,

379

(4th

2006)

(stating

presumption may be rebutted by showing sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the § 3553(a) factors).

5

Therefore, we

Appeal: 10-5232

Document: 31

Date Filed: 08/16/2011

Page: 6 of 6

conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable.

See Go,

517 F.3d at 220.
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6