UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4290
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES BEARRIE HYLTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00292-TDS-1)
Submitted: October 15, 2013 Decided: October 22, 2013
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, T. Nick
Matkins, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Bearrie Hylton appeals the district court’s
judgment sentencing him to seventy months’ imprisonment for
possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(2) (2006). On appeal, Hylton argues that his sentence
is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). In doing so, we first examine the sentence for
significant procedural error, including improperly calculating
the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, treating the
Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors, choosing a sentence based
on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
sentence. Id. at 51. We assess the substantive reasonableness
of the sentence under the totality of the circumstances. United
States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we presume on
appeal that the sentence is substantively reasonable. United
States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012).
We conclude that Hylton’s sentence, which was at the
bottom of the properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range,
is not substantively unreasonable. The district court
considered and rejected Hylton’s arguments for a below-
2
Guidelines sentence. The court noted that Hylton’s criminal
history and lack of employment history weighed against him,
finding that a within-Guidelines sentence was necessary to
provide just punishment and protect the public. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Because the district court acted well within its
considerable discretion in making this finding, we conclude that
Hylton has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that
attaches to a within-Guidelines 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 material before this
court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3