UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-5018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROBERT TYRONE CAMPBELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00019-D-1)
Submitted: December 20, 2013 Decided: January 23, 2014
Before MOTZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William T. Russell, Jr., Juan A. Arteaga, SIMPSON THACHER &
BARTLETT, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellant. Thomas G.
Walker, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Robert Tyrone Campbell pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon. He now appeals his 188-month
sentence. We affirm.
Campbell’s Guidelines range was 180-210 months. At
sentencing on November 13, 2012, the district court overruled
three factual objections to the presentence investigation
report. The court then heard Campbell’s allocution and the
arguments of counsel. Pertinent to this appeal, Campbell asked
that, in accordance with U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 5G1.3(b)(1) (2012), he receive credit against his federal
sentence for approximately fourteen months that he had served on
a related state sentence.
The district court found that Campbell was entitled to
credit under the Guidelines. In imposing the 188-month
sentence, the court emphasized that the sentence reflected that
credit.
Campbell contends that the district court’s sentence
was unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances. This
court reviews a sentence for procedural and substantive
reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. See Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
We discern no error in this case. The 188-month
sentence is procedurally reasonable: the district court properly
2
calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors
set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), analyzed the arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence, including the credit applied pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)(1). See Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51; United
States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010). We
further conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable
based on the totality of the circumstances.
We accordingly affirm. 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