UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4960
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO A. MINOR, a/k/a Whiteboy,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00210-CMH-1)
Submitted: October 1, 2010 Decided: October 12, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., BYNUM & JENKINS, PLLC, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States
Attorney, Edmund P. Power, Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio A. Minor pleaded guilty, without a plea
agreement, to one count of conspiracy to receive, possess,
conceal, barter, sell and dispose of motor vehicles that crossed
a state boundary, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006), and
one count of interstate receipt, possession and sale of a stolen
motor vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2313 (2006). The
district court calculated Minor’s advisory Guidelines range
under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) (2008) to
be eighty-four to 105 months’ imprisonment and imposed a
sentence of eighty-four months’ imprisonment. Minor timely
appeals his sentence, challenging its substantive
reasonableness. We affirm.
We review the district court’s sentence for
reasonableness under an 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 a sentence. Id. Minor challenges the eighty-
four-month prison sentence as substantively unreasonable, but
concedes its procedural reasonableness.
In determining whether a sentence is substantively
reasonable, we “take into account the totality of the
circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Pauley,
511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). This court presumes that a
2
sentence within a properly determined advisory Guidelines range
is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Abu Ali,
529 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008).
Minor argues that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the sentence he received was greater than
those of his co-conspirators. Minor asserts that the disparate
sentences ignore “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence
disparities among defendants with similar records who have been
found guilty of similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)
(2006). However, Minor’s sentence differed from those of his
co-conspirators because his more extensive criminal history
yielded a higher Guidelines range.
We conclude that Minor has not rebutted the
presumption of reasonableness that we apply to a sentence within
the properly calculated Guidelines range. Accordingly, 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 the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3