US v. David Norman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00004-jpj-pms-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998691653].. [11-4491]

Appeal: 11-4491

Document: 22

Date Filed: 10/03/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4491

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DAVID L. NORMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.
James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00004-jpj-pms-2)

Submitted:

September 26, 2011

Before DAVIS and
Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

October 3, 2011

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry
W.
Shelton,
Federal
Public
Defender,
Nancy
Combs
Dickenson,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Christine
Madeleine
Lee,
Research
and
Writing
Attorney,
Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States
Attorney, Debbie H. Stevens, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4491

Document: 22

Date Filed: 10/03/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David L. Norman pled guilty to one count of possession
of

a

prohibited

object

§ 1791(a)(2) (2006).
top

of

the

in

prison

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

The district court sentenced Norman at the

Guidelines

range

to

thirty

months’

imprisonment.

Norman appeals his sentence, contending that the court summarily
rejected

his

argument

that

his

extended

period

in

punitive

segregation in the Special Housing Unit warranted a variance or
departure

from

the

advisory

Guidelines

range.

Norman

also

contends that the court failed to articulate why the factors
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) supported a sentence at the top
end of the advisory Guidelines range.
We
deferential
States,

review

a

sentence

abuse-of-discretion

552

U.S.

38,

51

We affirm.

for

reasonableness

(2007).

A

United

reasonableness

review

includes both procedural and substantive components.
sentence

is

procedurally

reasonable

a

v.

standard.

Gall

under

where

the

Id.

district

A

court

committed no significant procedural errors, such as improperly
calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or insufficiently explaining
the selected sentence.

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

837-38 (4th Cir. 2010).
sentence

is

circumstances.

assessed

The substantive reasonableness of a
in

light

of

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
2

the

totality

of

the

While a sentence may be

Appeal: 11-4491

Document: 22

substantively

Date Filed: 10/03/2011

unreasonable

if

the

Page: 3 of 3

§

3553(a)

factors

do

not

support the sentence, “[r]eviewing courts must be mindful that,
regardless

of

‘the

abuse-of-discretion
sentencing

individual

standard

decisions.’”

of

case,’

review

United

.

States

the
.

to

all

Diosdado-Star,

v.

.

‘deferential

applies

630

F.3d 359, 366 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2946 (2011)
(citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 52).

Moreover, a sentence that falls

within a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable.

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.

2007).
We

find

Norman’s

claims

to

be

without

merit.

The

record discloses that the district court properly considered the
factors

under

§ 3553(a),

sentence was imposed.
tenure

in

the

and

explained

why

the

thirty-month

The court expressly mentioned Norman’s

Special

Housing

Unit

as

a

factor

for

consideration, and stated that if not for his time there, the
court might have imposed a longer sentence.
We accordingly affirm the conviction and sentence.
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