UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5241
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROGER MIKEL SMALLWOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00065-sgw-1)
Submitted: August 31, 2009 Decided: September 18, 2009
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Fay F. Spence,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, United States Attorney, Jeb T.
Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Mikel Smallwood pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or
more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006),
and was sentenced to 135 months in prison, well below the
advisory guidelines range of 188 to 235 months. Smallwood
appeals, arguing that his variance sentence is unreasonable.
Finding no error, we affirm.
When determining a sentence, the district court must
calculate the appropriate advisory guidelines range and consider
it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, , 128
S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). Appellate review of a district court’s
imposition of a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or
significantly outside the [g]uidelines range,” is for abuse of
discretion. Id. at 591. In imposing a variance sentence, the
district court “must consider the extent of the deviation and
ensure that the justification is significantly compelling to
support the degree of the variance. . . . [I]t [is]
uncontroversial that a major departure should be supported by a
more significant justification than a minor one.” Id. at 597.
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Smallwood, appropriately treating the
guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the
2
applicable guidelines range, performing an individualized
assessment of the § 3553(a) factors to the facts of the case,
and stating in open court the reasons for the sentence. United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Smallwood
argued for a variance sentence and received one. The court
articulated its reasons for the variance--the delay in
prosecution, the sentences of Smallwood’s co-defendants, and
Smallwood’s rehabilitative efforts--and weighed these factors
against the seriousness of the offense, the large quantity of
drugs foreseeable to Smallwood, and his role in the conspiracy.
We conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment. 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