UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4458
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LAVARIS JAMIL PERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00414-TDS-1)
Submitted: November 21, 2014 Decided: December 10, 2014
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Robert M. Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lavaris Jamil Perry pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess and utter
counterfeit securities and one count of possessing and uttering
counterfeit securities. He was sentenced to twenty-seven
months’ imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and
restitution. On appeal, Perry challenges his sentence. Finding
no error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a
“deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 52 (2007). We first consider whether the
sentencing court committed “significant procedural error,”
including improper calculation of the Guidelines range,
insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors, and inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed.
Id. at 51; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th
Cir. 2010). In assessing Guidelines calculations, we review
factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de novo, and
unpreserved arguments for plain error. United States v.
Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012).
If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, we
also consider its substantive reasonableness under the totality
of the circumstances. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575. The sentence
imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to
2
comply with the purposes” of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We presume on appeal that a within-Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable, and the defendant bears the burden to
“rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.”
United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.
2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Upon review, we find Perry’s within-Guidelines
sentence to be both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
The district court expressly considered the § 3553(a) factors,
and Perry has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness
applicable to his sentence. Accordingly, we 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