UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8052
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAVON DOBIE, a/k/a Becky Parker, a/k/a Theresa Waller, a/k/a
Dobie Parker,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-4208
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAVON DOBIE, a/k/a Becky Parker, a/k/a Theresa Waller, a/k/a
Dobie Parker,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge.
(8:04-cr-00235-RWT-9)
Submitted: September 25, 2013 Decided: October 17, 2013
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan A. Gladstone, LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN A. GLADSTONE,
Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Nicolas A. Mitchell, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Lavon Dobie appeals the 170-month sentence imposed
following this court’s remand for consideration of her request
for a minor role adjustment under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 3B1.2 (2012). * Dobie challenges the reasonableness of
her sentence, arguing that the district court erroneously found
that it was barred from sentencing Dobie below the Guidelines
range and that the court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In determining
procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district
court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines
range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an
*
Dobie also appealed from the district court’s order
denying her motion for retroactive application of the Fair
Sentencing Act, giving rise to Appeal No. 12-8052, which was
consolidated with Appeal No. 13-4208. Because Dobie’s brief
challenges only the sentence imposed on resentencing, Dobie has
abandoned any challenge to the application of the Fair
Sentencing Act and we do not consider that issue here. See
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999) (noting that pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A),
issues not briefed are deemed abandoned).
3
appropriate sentence, considered the § 3553(a) factors, or
failed to explain sufficiently the selected sentence. Id. at
49-51.
If the sentence is free of significant procedural
error, we review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing]
into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51.
When, as here, the sentence is within the properly calculated
Guidelines range, we apply a presumption on appeal that the
sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-
Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). Such a presumption
is rebutted only if the defendant shows “that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.”
United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.
2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court correctly calculated and considered
the advisory Guidelines range, heard argument from counsel, and
heard allocution from Dobie. Contrary to Dobie’s argument, the
court considered the § 3553(a) factors and explained that the
within-Guidelines sentence was warranted. The district court
understood it had the authority to sentence Dobie below the
Guidelines range but opted to impose a sentence at the bottom of
that range. Dobie offers no argument to rebut the presumption
on appeal that her within-Guidelines sentence is substantively
4
reasonable. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Dobie.
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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5