UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4290
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONALD SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:07-cr-00054-F-1)
Submitted: January 29, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne
M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Scott pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2006). He was sentenced to the statutory maximum term of 120
months of imprisonment, a sentence within the advisory
sentencing guidelines range. Scott appeals his sentence,
arguing that the sentence is procedurally and substantially
unreasonable. We affirm.
A sentence is reviewed for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct.
586, 597 (2007); see also United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218
(4th Cir. 2008). The appellate court must first determine
whether the district court committed any “significant procedural
error,” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597, and then consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, applying a
presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the
guidelines range. Go, 517 F.3d at 218; see also Gall, 128 S.
Ct. at 597; Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S. Ct.
2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness
for within-guidelines sentence).
Scott asserts that the district court failed to
explain adequately the reasons for imposing a sentence at the
top of the guidelines range. However, “when a judge decides
simply to apply the [g]uidelines to a particular case, doing so
2
will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Rita, 127 S.
Ct. at 2468. In this case, the district court provided a
sufficient explanation for the sentence imposed and, therefore,
made no procedural error.
Scott further asserts that the sentence is
substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to
give him proper credit for accepting responsibility. Scott
argues that this will lead to disparity in sentencing among
defendants who plead guilty and accept responsibility, and those
who decide instead to go to trial. However, when a sentence is
within the guidelines range, a presumption of reasonableness
applies. See Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2462-69; United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Scott has failed to
rebut this presumption. We thus find the sentence reasonable.
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the
district court. 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