UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4827
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BARRY RAY HOWARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00188-CCE-1)
Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John D. Bryson, WYATT, EARLY, HARRIS & WHEELER, LLP, High Point,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States
Attorney, Kennedy Gates, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Barry Ray Howard was sentenced to 112 months’ imprisonment
after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012).
He appeals, contending that the district court erred by denying
his request for a downward variance. Finding no error, we
affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, applying
“a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In reviewing a sentence for
reasonableness, we first consider whether “the district court
committed . . . significant procedural error.” Id. at 51. If
there is no such error, we next consider whether the sentence is
substantively reasonable, “tak[ing] into account the totality of
the circumstances.” Id. We presume that “[a] sentence within
the [advisory] Guidelines range is . . . substantively
reasonable.” United States v. Helton, 782 F.3d 148, 151 (4th
Cir. 2015).
We conclude that Howard’s within-Guidelines sentence is
both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district
court considered Howard’s arguments for a variance and credited
them as a reason not to impose a sentence at the statutory
maximum. The court then thoroughly explained why other 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors justified a sentence within the
2
advisory Guidelines range. Moreover, Howard has failed to rebut
the presumption that his sentence is substantively reasonable.
See United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 176 (4th Cir. 2014).
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