US v. Robin George

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00189-WO-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999966001].. [16-4248]

Appeal: 16-4248

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/10/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4248

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBIN LYNN GEORGE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00189-WO-2)

Submitted:

November 3, 2016

Decided:

November 10, 2016

Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-4248

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/10/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Robin Lynn George pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of
a minor by a parent for the production of child pornography, in
violation
court

of

18

imposed

appeals,

U.S.C.

a

§ 2251(b),

claiming

unreasonable.

that

George

the

The

district

252-month

sentence.

George

sentence

below-Guidelines

(e)

is

contends

that

(2012).

the

substantively

district

court’s

sentence exceeds the length necessary to satisfy the purposes of
sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012).
We

review

a

sentence

for

deferential

abuse-of-discretion

States,

U.S.

552

procedural
substantive

and

38,

51

substantive

reasonableness,

circumstances.”

reasonableness

standard.”

(2007).

Gall

v.

Reasonableness

components.
we

under

consider

Id.
“the

United

has

To

“a

both

evaluate

totality

of

the

Id.

The court presumes reasonable the length of a downwardvariance sentence.
(4th Cir. 2012).

United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289
We may consider the extent that a sentence

varies from the applicable Guidelines range, “but must give due
deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a)
factors,
United
2011).

on

States

a

whole,
v.

justify

the

Diosdado-Star,

630

extent

of

F.3d

359,

the
366

variance.”
(4th

Cir.

Section 3553(a) provides that the court should consider

the following factors when imposing a sentence:
2

Appeal: 16-4248

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/10/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and
the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2)

the need for the sentence imposed-(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
to promote respect for the law, and to provide
just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford
conduct;

adequate

deterrence

to

criminal

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of
the defendant; and
(D) to
provide
the
defendant
with
needed
educational or vocational training, medical care,
or other correctional treatment in the most
effective manner[.]
After reviewing the record, we find that George failed to
rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded her downwardvariance

sentence.

The

district

court

contemplated

mitigating factors that George cites on appeal:

all

the

the unusualness

of her behavior while dating the man who coerced her offenses,
her susceptibility to that coercion, and her vulnerability after
the death of her husband.
and

circumstances

of

the

The court also assessed the nature
offense

without

overvaluing

it.

Finally, the court addressed each of the four factors listed in
§ 3553(a)(2), sufficiently accounting for all the purposes of
sentencing.

Thus, the court imposed a substantively reasonable

sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

3

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 16-4248

Doc: 24

contentions

are

Filed: 11/10/2016

adequately

Pg: 4 of 4

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4