UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5184
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONTE D. ROLLERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-01227-PMD-1)
Submitted: June 21, 2011 Decided: July 13, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Nick Bianchi, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donte D. Rollerson pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a weapon (Count 1) and possession of firearm with
an obliterated serial number (Count 2). Rollerson was sentenced
to seventy months of imprisonment for Count 1 and sixty months
for Count 2, to run concurrently. The seventy-month sentence
was the bottom of Rollerson’s correctly calculated Sentencing
Guidelines range. On appeal, Rollerson contends that his
sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. For
the reasons that follow, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we
review a sentence for reasonableness, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” and
this Court applies a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). We first must
“ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error.” Id. at 51. Only if the sentence is
procedurally reasonable can this Court evaluate the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, again using the abuse of
discretion standard of review. Id.; United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
We find no procedural or substantive error. Moreover,
if a sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we
apply a presumption on appeal that the sentence is reasonable.
2
United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008); see
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States
v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (“A sentence within
the proper Sentencing Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable.”) (citation omitted). When reviewing a sentence for
substantive reasonableness, we take into account “the totality
of the circumstances” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, and the presumption
of reasonableness is rebutted only by showing “that the sentence
is unreasonable when measured against the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)
[(2006)] factors.” United States v. Montes–Pineda, 445 F.3d
375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Rollerson has failed to rebut the presumption.
Accordingly, we affirm Rollerson’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