US v. Xavier Luckey

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00226-TDS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998713298]. [11-4092]

Appeal: 11-4092

Document: 27

Date Filed: 11/01/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4092

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
XAVIER DIAMOND LUCKEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00226-TDS-1)

Submitted:

October 12, 2011

Decided:

November 1, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Clifton T.
Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4092

Document: 27

Date Filed: 11/01/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Xavier Diamond Luckey pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to one count of possession of ammunition by a
convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)
(2006).

The district court imposed a custodial sentence of 180

months followed by five years of supervised release.
appeals

the

length

of

We

review

a

the

term

of

supervised

Luckey

release.

We

affirm.

discretion standard.
(2007).

First,

ensuring

that

we

the

sentence

under

a

deferential

abuse

of

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
inspect

for

district

procedural

court

reasonableness

committed

no

by

significant

procedural errors, such as failing to calculate or improperly
calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18
U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)

(2006)

explain the sentence.
837-38

(4th

Cir.

factors,

or

failing

to

adequately

United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832,

2010).

We

then

consider

the

substantive

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the
totality

of

the

circumstances.

Gall,

552

U.S.

at

51.

We

presume that a sentence within a properly-calculated Guidelines
range is reasonable.
(4th Cir. 2007).

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193

That presumption may be rebutted by a showing

“that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the [18
U.S.C.] § 3553 factors.”

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445
2

Appeal: 11-4092

F.3d

Document: 27

375,

379

Date Filed: 11/01/2011

(4th

Cir.

2006)

Page: 3 of 3

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
The
explanation

district
for

its

court

provided

imposition

of

a

cogent

Luckey’s

and

adequate

sentence.

It

explained both the mitigating and the aggravating factors that
formed

the

basis

for

the

sentence.

The

five-year

term

of

supervised release was within the advisory Guidelines range and
Luckey has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness
that attaches to such a sentence.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3