US v. Douglas Mark Gilbert

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00296-TDS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999683766].. [15-4165]

Appeal: 15-4165

Doc: 23

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4165

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DOUGLAS MARK GILBERT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00296-TDS-1)

Submitted:

October 14, 2015

Decided:

October 22, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Anand P.
Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4165

Doc: 23

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Douglas Mark Gilbert pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to possessing child pornography, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2) (2012).

On appeal, Gilbert

challenges the district court’s imposition of a 15-year term of
supervised release as substantively unreasonable.
This

court

deferential

reviews

a

sentence’s

abuse-of-discretion

reasonableness

standard.”

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).

We affirm.

Gall

under
v.

“a

United

The sentence imposed must be

“sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the
purposes of sentencing.

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012).

We apply a

presumption of reasonableness on appeal to a within-Guidelinesrange sentence.
Cir.

2015)

United States v. Helton, 782 F.3d 148, 151 (4th

(affirming

substantive

reasonableness

of

lifetime

term of supervised release in possession of child pornography
appeal).

“Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing

that

sentence

the

is

§ 3553(a) factors.”

unreasonable

when

measured

against

the

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295,

306 (4th Cir.) cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
After

reviewing

the

record,

we

sentence was substantively reasonable.

conclude

that

Gilbert’s

His term of supervised

release fell within his Guidelines range and was well below the
lifetime term of supervised release advocated by the Government
and probation office.

The court weighed the seriousness of the
2

Appeal: 15-4165

Doc: 23

offense,

Filed: 10/22/2015

Gilbert’s

criminal

Pg: 3 of 3

history,

his

need

for

substance

abuse and sex offender treatment, and his age in assigning this
term,

and

Gilbert

has

not

rebutted

its

substantive

reasonableness.
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