UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4790
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
COREY TERRELLE BEATY,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cr-00105-HMH-1)
Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis H. Lang, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States
Attorney, Maxwell Cauthen, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
After he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of
a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006) and 18
U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), (e) (2006), the district court sentenced
Corey Terrelle Beaty to 120 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,
Beaty asserts his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because
the district court failed to adequately explain the reasons for
the sentence it imposed. We reject this contention and affirm
the district court’s judgment for the following reasons.
We review Beaty’s sentence for reasonableness under an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). This review requires appellate consideration of
both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a
sentence. Id. In determining procedural reasonableness, we
consider whether the district court properly calculated the
defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by
the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
Id.
Beaty did not preserve his objection to the
sufficiency of the district court’s explanation “[b]y drawing
arguments from § 3553 for a sentence different than the one
ultimately imposed.” United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578
(4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we will review Beaty’s challenge
2
to the sufficiency of the court’s explanation of his sentence
for plain error. Id. at 576-77. To establish plain error,
Beaty must demonstrate that (1) there was error; (2) the error
was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993).
Applying the Supreme Court’s directive in Gall, this
court has opined that, “[r]egardless of whether the district
court imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it
must place on the record an individualized assessment 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 omitted). We recently reiterated this requirement in
Lynn. See Lynn, 592 F.3d at 576.
Even if we were to find the district court’s
explanation for the sentence imposed in this case was
inadequate, which we do not, see United States v. Hernandez,
__ F.3d __, 2010 WL 1695606, at *3-*4 (4th Cir. 2010), we would
nonetheless affirm the district court’s judgment. Beaty’s
attorney did not rely on any of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors
to advocate for a sentence different than the 120-month sentence
Beaty received, which was the lowest sentence available under
the controlling advisory guideline. Accordingly, Beaty cannot
demonstrate that the district court’s “very brief
3
explanation . . . had a prejudicial effect on the sentence
imposed.” Lynn, 592 F.3d at 580.
For these reasons, we affirm Beaty’s 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
*
Although not raised, we note that we afford Beaty’s
within-Guidelines sentence a presumption of substantive
reasonableness. See United States v. Wright, 594 F.3d 259, 267
(4th Cir. 2010); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
347 (2007) (upholding rebuttable presumption of reasonableness
for within-Guidelines sentence).
4