US v. Henry Lee

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00281-LCB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000000916].. [16-4217]

Appeal: 16-4217

Doc: 35

Filed: 01/10/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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)

Submitted:

December 30, 2016

Decided:

January 10,2017

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4217

Doc: 35

Filed: 01/10/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Henry Allen Lee pled guilty to receipt of child pornography,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1) (2012).

The

district court varied below the Sentencing Guidelines range and
sentenced Lee to 121 months’ imprisonment.
challenging

the

substantive

reasonableness

Lee now appeals,
of

the

sentence.

Finding no error, we affirm.
We

review

the

reasonableness

of

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).

a

sentence

“under

a

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
F.3d

288,

295-96

(4th

Cir.

2012)

(rejecting

argument

that

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
his sentence.

Based on the factors identified by the district
2

Appeal: 16-4217

Doc: 35

Filed: 01/10/2017

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.

We

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.

AFFIRMED

3