UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4735
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RONNIE VICTOR EVERETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. W. Earl Britt,
Senior District Judge. (4:12-cr-00130-BR-1)
Submitted: May 30, 2014 Decided: June 4, 2014
Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ronnie Victor Everett pled guilty to three counts of
distribution of cocaine base and one count of possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon. The district court sentenced
Everett to concurrent terms of 188 months on the three
distribution counts, and 120 months on the firearm count, to run
concurrently. Everett appeals his sentence, contending that the
district court erred in finding that his previous state
convictions for manufacturing, selling, or possessing a
controlled substance within 1000 feet of a park, and for
possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana, were not
relevant conduct to his federal offenses of conviction. Thus,
he contends, the court erred in failing to credit him the
portion of the state sentence Everett had already served, and in
declining to order that the federal sentence run concurrently
with the undischarged portion of his state sentence.
This court reviews sentences for reasonableness “under
a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails appellate
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In determining
procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district
court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines
range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an
2
appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51.
We have reviewed Everett’s sentence in light of his
claims and find no procedural error. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3 (2013). Accordingly, we find his
sentence to be reasonable and affirm the district court’s
judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3