UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4914
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DAMON LESHAWN COLE, a/k/a Damon Lashawn Cole, a/k/a Calvin
Scott,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00104-NCT-1)
Submitted: May 29, 2015 Decided: June 11, 2015
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Sandra J.
Hairston, First Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Damon Leshawn Cole pleaded guilty to possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). The district court
sentenced Cole to 60 months of imprisonment followed by five
years of supervised release and Cole now appeals. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
On appeal, Cole argues that the district court failed to
adequately explain the five-year period of supervised release
and that the term of supervised release is substantively
unreasonable. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d
330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we first examine the
sentence for “significant procedural error,” including “failing
to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range,
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence . . . .” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We
then “‘consider[] the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed.’” United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.
2008) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). If the sentence is within
the Guidelines range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness.
2
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-59 (2007) (upholding
presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
In sentencing a defendant, a district court must conduct an
“individualized assessment” of the particular facts of every
sentence, whether the court imposes a sentence above, below, or
within the Guidelines range. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). With respect to the adequacy of the
explanation, as Cole failed to request a sentence or period of
supervised release other than that imposed, we review this issue
for plain error. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578
(4th Cir. 2010). “To prevail, [Cole] must show that an error
(1) was made, (2) is plain (i.e., clear or obvious), and
(3) affects substantial rights.” United States v. Lemon, 777
F.3d 170, 172 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Even if Cole makes this showing, we “may
exercise [our] discretion to correct the error only if it
seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation
of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant
legal authorities and conclude that Cole has failed to
demonstrate that the district court plainly erred in imposing
the period of supervised release. We further conclude that Cole
3
has failed to overcome the presumption of reasonableness applied
to his within-Guidelines sentence and supervised release period.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4