US v. Barry Howard
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00188-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999587658].. [14-4827]
Appeal: 14-4827
Doc: 25
Filed: 05/21/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4827
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BARRY RAY HOWARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00188-CCE-1)
Submitted:
May 19, 2015
Decided: May 21, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John D. Bryson, WYATT, EARLY, HARRIS & WHEELER, LLP, High Point,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States
Attorney,
Kennedy
Gates,
Special
Assistant
United
States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-4827
Doc: 25
Filed: 05/21/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Barry Ray Howard was sentenced to 112 months’ imprisonment
after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012).
He appeals, contending that the district court erred by denying
his
request
for
a
downward
variance.
Finding
no
error,
we
affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, applying
“a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
Gall v. United
In reviewing a sentence for
reasonableness, we first consider whether “the district court
committed . . . significant procedural error.”
Id. at 51.
If
there is no such error, we next consider whether the sentence is
substantively reasonable, “tak[ing] into account the totality of
the circumstances.”
the
[advisory]
reasonable.”
Id.
We presume that “[a] sentence within
Guidelines
range
is
.
.
.
substantively
United States v. Helton, 782 F.3d 148, 151 (4th
Cir. 2015).
We
conclude
that
Howard’s
within-Guidelines
both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
sentence
is
The district
court considered Howard’s arguments for a variance and credited
them as a reason not to impose a sentence at the statutory
maximum.
The
court
then
thoroughly
explained
why
other
18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors justified a sentence within the
2
Appeal: 14-4827
Doc: 25
Filed: 05/21/2015
advisory Guidelines range.
Pg: 3 of 3
Moreover, Howard has failed to rebut
the presumption that his sentence is substantively reasonable.
See United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 176 (4th Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?