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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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