US v. Gary Lyle

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00377-NCT-24. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000005226]. [16-4276]

Appeal: 16-4276

Doc: 36

Filed: 01/18/2017

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4276

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GARY WAYNE LYLES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00377-NCT-24)

Submitted:

December 21, 2016

Decided:

January 18, 2017

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elisa C. Salmon, SALMON LAW FIRM, LLP, Lillington, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Terry
M.
Meinecke,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4276

Doc: 36

Filed: 01/18/2017

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Gary

Wayne

Lyles

pleaded

guilty

pursuant

to

a

plea

agreement to conspiracy to possess pseudoephedrine with intent
to

manufacture

sentence.

methamphetamine.

On

appeal,

he

He

argues

received
that

procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
We

review

defendant’s

sentence

is

We affirm.
of

discretion.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

In

reviewing

district

court’s

sentence

his

82-month

abuse

a

a

an

decision

to

for

an

apply

a

sentencing

enhancement, “[w]e accord due deference to a district court’s
application of the sentencing guidelines.”

United States v.

Steffen, 741 F.3d 411, 414 (4th Cir. 2013).

We review the

district court’s factual determinations for clear error.
However,

“if

the

issue

turns

primarily

on

the

Id.
legal

interpretation of a guideline term, the standard moves closer to
de novo review.”

Id. (alterations and internal quotation marks

omitted).
The district court imposed a two-level enhancement for the
unlawful transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of a
hazardous

waste,

under

§ 2D1.11(b)(3)(B) (2014).

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

For the enhancement to apply, the

defendant’s conduct must violate one of several environmental
statutes, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
42 U.S.C. § 6928(d) (2012).

USSG § 2D1.11 cmt. n.4.
2

Lyles

Appeal: 16-4276

Doc: 36

asserts

that

Filed: 01/18/2017

the

district

Pg: 3 of 5

court

erred

in

applying

this

enhancement.
We assume, without deciding, that the court erred in its
determination.
enhancement,

Even

if

“harmless

the

error

court
review

erred

in

assessing

applies

to

a

the

district

court’s procedural sentencing errors made during its Guidelines
calculation.”

United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 382

(4th Cir. 2014).

Thus, “we commonly assume, without deciding,

an error in performing harmless error inquiry.”
v.

Savillon-Matute,

636

F.3d

119,

123

(4th

United States

Cir.

2011).

A

“Guidelines error is harmless if we believe (1) the district
court would have reached the same result even if it had decided
the guidelines issue the other way, and (2) the sentence would
be [substantively] reasonable even if the guidelines issue had
been

decided

in

the

defendant’s

favor.”

United

States

v.

Parral-Dominguez, 794 F.3d 440, 447 (4th Cir. 2015) (alteration
in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Even assuming

that the application of the USSG § 2D1.11(b)(3)(B) enhancement
was in error, that error was harmless.
Although
“backed

out”

the

district

court

the

increased

two

applied
offense

the

enhancement,

levels

because

it

other

defendants involved in the same conspiracy did not receive the
same

enhancement.

Guidelines

range

The
without

court

sentenced

consideration
3

Lyles
of

the

based

on

the

enhancement.

Appeal: 16-4276

Doc: 36

Filed: 01/18/2017

Pg: 4 of 5

Thus, any potential error from applying the enhancement is moot
and harmless.
Lyles

See Parral-Dominguez, 794 F.3d at 447.

also

argues

that

his

82-month

sentence

is

substantively reasonable because it is higher than necessary to
meet

the

considerations

of

the

18

U.S.C.

§

3553(a)

factors under the totality of the circumstances.

(2012)

Lyles argues

that he had a limited criminal history consisting of relatively
minor offenses, that prior to his methamphetamine addiction he
had a solid and stable lifestyle, and that after receiving drug
rehabilitation, he would be an unlikely recidivist.
If a sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” as
is the case here, we review it for substantive reasonableness,
“tak[ing]

into

account

the

totality

of

the

circumstances.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

“Any sentence that is within or below a

properly

Guidelines

calculated

reasonable.”
Cir. 2014).

range

is

presumptively

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th
“Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing

that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”
Lyles

has

below-Guidelines

not

Id.

rebutted

sentence

is

the

presumption

substantively

that

reasonable.

his
The

district court considered that Lyles did not “offend[] greatly,”
and that Lyles sincerely took responsibility for his offense.
The

court

stated

that

it

felt
4

“optimistic”

about

Lyles’

Appeal: 16-4276

Doc: 36

Filed: 01/18/2017

Pg: 5 of 5

potential when listening to him allocute.
Lyles’

employment

history

and

limited

The court also noted
criminal

history

considered the need for correctional drug treatment.

and

The court

also stated that the methamphetamine offense involved a serious
drug

and

a

serious

problem.

Viewing

the

totality

of

the

circumstances, we conclude that Lyles has failed to overcome the
presumption

of

reasonableness

accorded

his

below-Guidelines

sentence.
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

5