US v. Henry Lee
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00281-LCB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4217]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
HENRY ALAN LEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta Copeland Biggs,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00281-LCB-1)
December 30, 2016
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Eric L. Iverson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Henry Allen Lee pled guilty to receipt of child pornography,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1) (2012).
district court varied below the Sentencing Guidelines range and
sentenced Lee to 121 months’ imprisonment.
Lee now appeals,
Finding no error, we affirm.
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
Gall v. United States,
Because Lee does not assert any procedural
sentencing error, we review only the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence, considering “the totality of the circumstances,
including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.”
Id. at 51.
We presume that a sentence below a properly calculated
Guidelines range is substantively reasonable, rebuttable only “by
showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”
United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014); see United States v. Strieper, 666
presumption of reasonableness should not apply to sentences for
child pornography offenses).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Lee
has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness applied to
Based on the factors identified by the district
Pg: 3 of 3
court, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
Lee’s downward variant sentence is sufficient but not greater than
necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?