UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4809
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVE EDWARD GROGANS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:11-cr-00021-SGW-1)
Submitted: August 20, 2012 Decided: August 24, 2012
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Helen E. Phillips, ALLEN, KOPET & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Bristol,
Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States
Attorney, Kartic Padmanabhan, Assistant United States Attorney,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steve Edward Grogans appeals the district court’s
sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment imposed after his plea of
guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On
appeal, Grogans contends that his sentence, which was ninety
months above the top of the applicable Guidelines range, was
unreasonable and that the district court erred in sentencing him
in the absence of objections to the presentence report. We
affirm.
This court “review[s] a sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard.” United States v.
Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 282 (4th Cir. 2012). When the district
court imposes a sentence outside the Guidelines’ range, “we
consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with
respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with
respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing
range.” United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118,
123 (4th Cir. 2007) We will affirm if “the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [2006] factors, on the whole, justified the sentence”
imposed. United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 367 (4th
Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 131
S. Ct. 2946 (2011).
Grogans asserts that the upward variance was not
warranted because the Guidelines and the Armed Career Criminal
2
Act took into account his criminal history. We have reviewed
the record and conclude that the district court considered the
parties’ arguments and fully explained its decision pursuant to
the § 3553(a) factors, particularly Grogans’ extraordinary
criminal history over a lengthy period of time, the likelihood
of recidivism, and the need to protect the public from Grogans.
Grogans has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.
Grogans also argues that the district court erred by
sentencing him as an armed career criminal in the absence of
objections to the source of the documents used to establish his
predicate convictions. Because trial counsel did not object to
the presentence report, we review for plain error. See United
States v. Wallace, 515 F.3d 327, 332 (4th Cir. 2008). Grogans
must establish that an error occurred, that the error was plain,
and that the error affected his substantial rights. See United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Grogans fails to
identify any objection trial counsel should have made to the
presentence report. We thus conclude that Grogans has failed to
demonstrate plain error pursuant to Olano.
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3