UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4348
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DENNIS RAY HOWARD, a/k/a D,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00009-D-1)
Submitted: January 19, 2016 Decided: February 3, 2016
Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua B. Howard, GAMMON, HOWARD & ZESZOTARSKI, PLLC, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
A federal jury convicted Dennis Ray Howard of conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute phencyclidine
(“PCP”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012); nine counts of
distribution of PCP, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2012);
and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). The
district court originally sentenced Howard to life imprisonment
plus a consecutive mandatory minimum sentence of 60 months of
imprisonment for the firearm count. Howard appealed and we
affirmed the convictions, but vacated the sentence and remanded
for resentencing, finding that the sentence was substantively
unreasonable. See United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519 (4th
Cir. 2014).
Upon resentencing, the court sentenced Howard to 175 months
of imprisonment for the drug convictions, plus the consecutive
statutory mandatory minimum of 60 months for the firearm
conviction. Howard again appeals, arguing that the sentence is
substantively unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for abuse of discretion, determining
whether the sentence is procedurally and substantively
reasonable. United States v. Heath, 559 F.3d 263, 266 (4th Cir.
2009). “If no procedural error was committed, [we] can only
vacate a sentence if it was substantively unreasonable in light
2
of all relevant facts.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted);
see also United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 160 (4th Cir.
2008) (“[A]n appellate court must defer to the trial court and
can reverse a sentence only if it is unreasonable, even if the
sentence would not have been the choice of the appellate
court.”). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that the sentence is substantively reasonable.
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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3