UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4261
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BENJAMIN LEE KEZIAH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00058-MR-1)
Submitted: October 29, 2009 Decided: November 9, 2009
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph L. Ledford, JOSEPH L. LEDFORD, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Edward R. Ryan, Acting United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin Keziah pleaded guilty to possession of child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252(a)(4)(B) (West
2009), and two counts of receiving child pornography, in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252(a)(2) (West 2009). The district
court sentenced Keziah to 151 months of imprisonment and he now
appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
Keziah argues that the district court’s sentence is
procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We review a
sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct.
586, 597 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330,
335 (4th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 24,
2009) (No. 09-5584). In so doing, we first examine the sentence
for “significant procedural error,” including “failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the [g]uidelines range,
treating the [g]uidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence . . . .” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597.
This court then “‘consider[s] the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence imposed.’” United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155,
161 (4th Cir.) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597), cert. denied,
129 S. Ct. 476 (2008). “Substantive reasonableness review
2
entails taking into account the ‘totality of the circumstances,
including the extent of any variance from the [g]uidelines
range.’” United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir.
2007) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). If the sentence is
within the guidelines range, we apply a presumption of
reasonableness. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th
Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56
(2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for
within-guidelines sentence).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find that
the sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
The district court properly calculated the advisory guidelines
range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and provided
an adequate explanation of its chosen sentence. See United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328-30 (4th Cir. 2009). In
addition, Keziah has failed to rebut the presumption of
substantive reasonableness we accord to his within-guidelines
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