US v. Barry Howard


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-4827 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4827 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BARRY RAY HOWARD, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?