UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4135
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARQUIS DURELL ERBY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:07-cr-00547-HFF-1)
Submitted: July 18, 2008 Decided: August 29, 2008
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin F. McDonald, Acting United
States Attorney, Maxwell Cauthen, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marquis Durell Erby pled guilty to one count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. His advisory
Guidelines range was 84-105 months, reflecting a total offense
level of 23 and a criminal history category of V. At sentencing,
the district court adopted the presentence report, to which there
were no objections. The court mentioned a sentencing memorandum
filed by Erby and heard defense counsel’s argument based on that
memorandum. The court took into consideration the sentencing
factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
2007), remarking especially on Erby’s criminal history
(§ 3553(a)(1)) and the need for deterrence (§ 3553(a)(2)(B)). Erby
was sentenced to eighty-four months in prison. He appeals,
contending that the district court did not adequately explain its
reasons for imposing sentence. We affirm.
We review a federal sentence for abuse of discretion.
Under this standard, we must determine whether the sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. Gall v. United States,
128 S. Ct. 586, 594-97 (2007). We may afford a sentence that falls
within the properly calculated Guidelines range a presumption of
reasonableness. United States v. Battle, 499 F.3d 315, 322 (4th
Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1121 (2008); see Rita v.
United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007).
- 2 -
Erby’s eighty-four-month sentence, which falls at the lowest
end of his Guidelines range, is presumptively reasonable.
Moreover, the district court appropriately considered that range,
together with the sentencing memorandum, statements at sentencing,
and the § 3553(a) factors, when imposing sentence. With regard to
the § 3553(a) factors, we note that there is no requirement that
the sentencing judge give a lengthy explanation for the sentence;
rather, the judge need set forth only enough “to satisfy the
appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and
has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking
authority.” Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2468. In this regard, the
district court’s explanation for the sentence imposed was
sufficient.
After carefully examining the record, we conclude that the
sentence imposed is reasonable and that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in sentencing Erby to eighty-four months in
prison.* We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
*
We reject Erby’s contention that the district court was
mistaken about his criminal history. When discussing Erby’s
criminal record, the court said, “Some of it is drugs, some of it
is some serious stuff.” Erby’s record included several drug
offenses, which were assigned criminal history points, and several
convictions for driving under a suspended license, which received
no points. We believe that the phrase, “some of it is some serious
stuff” merely emphasizes the serious nature of the drug offenses
and does not, as Erby contends, reflect the district court’s
confusion about his criminal record.
- 3 -
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -