UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4920
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRADLEY STEVEN BARRETT,
Defendant – Appellant,
and
JANE DOE, #1; JANE DOE, #2; JANE DOE, #3,
Parties-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00001-IMK-1)
Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
L. Richard Walker, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant.
William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Andrew R.
Cogar, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Bradley Steven Barrett appeals the 405 month sentence
imposed after pleading guilty to one count of transportation of
a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) (2006). We affirm.
On appeal, Barrett raises one claim of error: that
the sentence imposed was substantively unreasonable. We review
Barrett’s sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Because Barrett does not challenge the procedural reasonableness
of his sentence, we consider the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to
see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in
concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards
set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)].” United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). We presume
on appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated Guideline
range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193
(4th Cir. 2007). Here, Barrett’s advisory Guidelines range was
life imprisonment.
We have reviewed the record, and conclude that
Barrett’s below-Guideline sentence was not unreasonable.
Barrett argues that the district court did not accord sufficient
weight to the fact that he suffers from cancer. The district
3
court, however, considered Barrett’s medical condition, and
concluded that because he arguably exploited his condition to
further his crimes, his poor health should not mitigate his
sentence. We cannot say, viewing that record, that the court
abused its discretion. In addition, we conclude that the court
did not err in relying on the interests of the victim as a
factor in imposing a sentence.
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