UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4401
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOE JOYNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00123-H-ALL)
Submitted: February 27, 2008 Decided: March 10, 2008
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joe Clinton Joyner pleaded guilty to two counts of bank
robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). On appeal
Joyner contends his 156-month sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.
Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district
courts for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). When
sentencing a defendant, a district court must: (1) properly
calculate the guidelines range; (2) determine whether a sentence
within that range serves the factors set out in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a); (3) implement mandatory statutory limitations; and
(4) explain its reasons for selecting a sentence. United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
2309 (2006). A sentence within a correctly calculated advisory
guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v.
Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
2054 (2006); Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007)
(upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines
sentence).
Our review of the record reveals no procedural or
substantive error with respect to Joyner’s 156-month sentence. The
sentencing court followed the required steps in sentencing Joyner:
(1) it properly calculated the guidelines range; (2) allowed both
parties an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deemed
- 2 -
appropriate; and (3) considered the § 3553(a) factors. See Gall,
128 S. Ct. at 596-97. The court considered counsel’s argument that
it should take into account in sentencing Joyner the fact that his
IQ is 68, in the mild mental retardation range. Moreover, Joyner
did not request a sentence outside of the guidelines, or a
particular sentence within the range. Under these circumstances,
Joyner cannot overcome the presumptive reasonableness of his
sentence within the guidelines range.
Accordingly, we affirm Joyner’s sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -