UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4643
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COURTNEY LEE DUNN,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00293-FL-1)
Submitted: December 15, 2010 Decided: January 10, 2011
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne Buchanan Eads, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Yvonne V. Watford McKinney, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Courtney Lee Dunn pleaded guilty to possession of a
firearm after having previously been convicted of a crime
punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The district court
sentenced Dunn to 108 months of imprisonment and he now appeals.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Dunn first challenges the district court’s imposition
of a departure sentence pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual (“USSG”) § 4A1.3 (2009). We review a sentence for
reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United
States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009), cert.
denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In so doing, we first examine
the sentence for “significant procedural error,” including
“failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence . . . .” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Finally, this court considers the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the
circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range.” Id.
2
When reviewing a departure, this court considers
“whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect
to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to
the extent of the divergence from the sentencing range.” United
States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 (4th Cir.
2007). Under USSG § 4A1.3(a)(1), “[i]f reliable information
indicates that the defendant’s criminal history category
substantially under-represents the seriousness of the
defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that the
defendant will commit other crimes, an upward departure may be
warranted.” We have thoroughly reviewed the record and
conclude that the district court’s decision to upwardly depart
was reasonable, the extent of the departure is reasonable and
supported by the record, and the court adequately explained both
its decision to depart and the extent of its departure.
Dunn next argues that the court failed to adequately
explain the chosen sentence. A district court must conduct an
“individualized assessment” of the particular facts of every
sentence, whether the court imposes a sentence above, below, or
within the guidelines range. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). While “[t]his individualized
assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, . . . it must
provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and
adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.” Id. at 330
3
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In addition,
“[w]here [the parties] present[] nonfrivolous reasons for
imposing a . . . sentence [outside the advisory Guidelines
range,] . . . a district judge should address the party’s
arguments and explain why he has rejected those arguments.” Id.
at 328 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Having
reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court’s
extensive statements at sentencing sufficiently explained the
court’s rationale underlying the sentence, and that the court
adequately responded to the parties’ nonfrivolous sentencing
arguments.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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
4