UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4357
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OCIE LEE BLACK, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:08-cr-00470-CCB-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Ebise Bayisa, Staff
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Judson, T. Mihok, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ocie Lee Black, Jr., pled guilty to receiving material
shipped and transported in interstate commerce depicting minors
engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 2252(a)(2) (West Supp. 2010) (Counts 1, 2), and
possession of material shipped and transported in interstate
commerce depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct,
in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252(a)(4)(B) (West Supp. 2010)
(Count 3).
The court sentenced Black to 292 months of
imprisonment for Counts 1 and 2, and to a 240-month sentence for
Count 3, all counts to run concurrent to each other. This gave
Black a total of 292 months of imprisonment, with eighty-two
months imposed to run concurrent to the state sentence that
Black was then serving. Alternatively, the court imposed a 210-
month federal sentence imposed to run consecutively to his state
sentence.
Black timely appeals, arguing that the district court
improperly balanced the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
2010) factors in the process of his sentencing, resulting in a
substantively unreasonable sentence. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
2
38, 51 (2007). 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 § 3553(a)
factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Gall, 552
U.S. at 51. If there is no significant procedural error, we
“then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed.” Id.
As noted above, however, Black only objects to the
substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Nonetheless, Black
was sentenced within a properly-calculated advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range and this court presumes on appeal that such a
sentence is substantively reasonable. See Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding permissibility of
appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines
sentence); United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.
2007) (same). Accordingly, we affirm Black’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
3