US v. Mark McGarrett Lewi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [999207317-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999207317-3] Originating case number: 4:09-cr-00949-RBH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999246511].. [13-6798]

Appeal: 13-6798

Doc: 34

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6798

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK MCGARRETT LEWIS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-00949-RBH-1)

Submitted:

November 21, 2013

Decided:

November 25, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6798

Doc: 34

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mark
sentence
Act.

McGarrett

imposed

upon

Lewis

appeals

resentencing

under

from
the

the

74-month

Fair

Sentencing

He contends that the sentence is unreasonable because the

district court denied his request for a variance based on his
post-sentencing
rehabilitation

rehabilitation
efforts

§ 3553(a) (2012).

without

impacted

addressing

the

factors

in

how
18

Lewis’s
U.S.C.

We affirm.

We have reviewed Lewis’s sentence and conclude that
the sentence imposed was reasonable.

See Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381,
387 (4th Cir. 2010).

The district court followed the necessary

procedural

sentencing

steps

in

Lewis.

The

court

properly

calculated and considered the applicable Guidelines range, and
appropriately treated the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory.

We

conclude that the district court appropriately considered and
rejected Lewis’s request for a variant sentence in light of the
§ 3553(a)

factors

and

Lewis’s

individual

characteristics

and

history, sufficiently explained the reasons for the sentence,
and

did

sentence.

not

abuse

its

discretion

in

imposing

the

chosen

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491

F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of
reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentence).

2

Appeal: 13-6798

Doc: 34

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we affirm Lewis’s 74-month sentence.

We

deny Lewis’s motion for a transcript at government expense and
his motion for leave to file a supplemental

brief.

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