UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4464
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SYLVESTER LADALE NICHOLSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton
Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00118-NCT-1)
Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: May 7, 2010
Before MICHAEL, * MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney,
Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
*
Judge Michael was a member of the original panel but did
not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a
quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Sylvester Ladale Nicholson pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006).
The district court sentenced Nicholson as an armed career
criminal to 230 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we
affirm.
On appeal, counsel contends that Nicholson’s sentence
is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to
accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). 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 § 3553(a). Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007). Further, the district
court “must place on the record an individualized assessment [of
the § 3553(a) factors] based on the particular facts of the case
before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th
Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a sentence,
“whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Gall, 552 U.S.
at 41. A sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines
range is presumed reasonable by this court. United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
3
Counsel contends that the district court committed
procedural error by failing to consider Nicholson’s personal
history in determining an appropriate sentence. See Gall, 552
U.S. at 51 (listing as “significant procedural error” a district
court’s “fail[ure] to consider the § 3553(a) factors”). The
record does not support this assertion. Nicholson’s personal
history was detailed in the Presentence Investigation Report and
highlighted by counsel during his sentencing argument. The
district court acknowledged counsel’s argument and agreed that
the circumstances of Nicholson’s past were significant.
However, the court noted its concern that the current offense
involved a shooting and that Nicholson had a violent criminal
history. Thus, the court concluded that protection of the
public outweighed other § 3553(a) factors. We cannot conclude
on this record that the district court committed significant
procedural error by failing to consider Nicholson’s history.
Nor can we conclude based on the district court’s analysis that
imposition of a 230-month sentence was substantively
unreasonable, particularly in light of the presumption of
reasonableness we may afford properly calculated within-
Guidelines sentences. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
347 (2007).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
4
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5