US v. Kendrick Lewi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00139-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999611760].. [14-4954]

Appeal: 14-4954

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4954

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KENDRICK LEWIS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:14-cr-00139-D-1)

Submitted:

June 16, 2015

Decided:

June 30, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Robert E. Waters,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Carrie D. Randa, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4954

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kendrick Lewis pled guilty to two counts of possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012).

He

was sentenced to 57 months on each count, to run concurrently.
Lewis now appeals, claiming that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable.
We

We affirm.

review

a

sentence

abuse-of-discretion standard.”
U.S.

38,

41

(2007).

“under

a

deferential

See Gall v. United States, 552

When

reviewing

for

substantive

reasonableness, we “examine[] the totality of the circumstances
to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in
concluding that the sentence . . . satisfied the standards set
forth in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) [(2012)].”

United States v.

Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).

If the

sentence is within the correctly calculated Guidelines range, as
it

is

here,

we

may

apply

a

presumption

sentence is substantively reasonable.
rebutted

only

unreasonable

if
when

the

defendant

measured

Id.

shows

against

on

that

the

This presumption is

“that

the

appeal

the

sentence

§ 3553(a)

is

factors.”

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F. 3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.
2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the district court stated at sentencing that it had
considered the arguments of counsel, Lewis’ statement to the
court, the Guidelines range, and all the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
2

Appeal: 14-4954

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/30/2015

(2012) factors.

Pg: 3 of 3

The court was particularly troubled by Lewis’

criminal history, noting that his criminal activity seemed to be
escalating.

The court also was concerned about the likelihood

of recidivism and stated that the selected sentence was intended
to have have a deterrent effect.
the

serious

nature

of

the

The court additionally noted

firearm

offenses

and

adequately

addressed Lewis’ troubled childhood.
We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable
and that Lewis failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness
we

accord

affirm.
legal
before

his

within-Guidelines

sentence.

Accordingly,

we

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3