UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4478
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROGER ALVESTER GEDDIE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:14-cr-00284-FL-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2016 Decided: April 11, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Barbara D. Kocher, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
The district court sentenced Roger Alvester Geddie to 105
months’ imprisonment and a 5-year term of supervised release
after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm
and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012).
Geddie argues on appeal that his above-Guidelines sentence of
imprisonment is substantively unreasonable. We affirm in part,
vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Because Geddie does not assert
on appeal any procedural sentencing error, we review only the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into
account the totality of the circumstances,” id. at 51, and
considering “whether the sentencing court abused its discretion
in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards
set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)],” United States v.
Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 383 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation
marks omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 305 (2014), and cert.
denied, 135 S. Ct. 384 (2014). “An appellate court owes ‘due
deference’ to a district court’s assessment of the § 3553(a)
factors, and mere disagreement with the sentence below is
‘insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.’”
United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 531 (4th Cir. 2014)
2
(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51); see id. at 529 n.8; see also
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51-52.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in departing from Geddie’s advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range and imposing a term of 105 months’
imprisonment. The district court departed upwardly pursuant to
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3, p.s. (2014). “A
court may base a Guidelines § 4A1.3 upward departure on a
defendant’s prior convictions, even if those convictions are too
old to be counted in the calculation of the Guidelines range
under Guidelines § 4A1.2(e).” United States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d
349, 352 (4th Cir. 2015). Here, the district court considered
Geddie’s argument that his past convictions were too remote but
concluded that considering these convictions was necessary to
better reflect Geddie’s criminal history. See id.
We likewise conclude that Geddie’s sentence is consistent
with the relevant § 3553(a) factors. The district court
considered Geddie’s criminal history in concluding that an
above-Guidelines sentence was necessary to promote respect for
the law and to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(A), (C). Furthermore, the district court
reasonably concluded that Geddie’s extensive criminal history,
including several firearms offenses, did not adequately deter
him from committing the instant offense and, thus, that a
3
lengthier sentence was necessary to afford adequate deterrence.
See id. § 3553(a)(2)(B); see also United States v. Montes-
Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 381 (4th Cir. 2006) (“[A] shorter prison
term was inappropriate for a defendant who had repeatedly
committed a serious offense and who had already proven immune to
other means of deterrence.”). Moreover, while Geddie argues
that his sentence creates unwarranted sentencing disparities,
the existence of USSG § 4A1.3, p.s., demonstrates that, when a
defendant’s criminal history category does not adequately
reflect the seriousness of his criminal history or the risk of
recidivism, such defendant is not similarly situated to other
defendants whose criminal history categories are not so
inadequate and, thus, renders any resulting sentencing disparity
between them warranted. Cf. Gall, 552 U.S. at 54 (“[A]voidance
of unwarranted disparities was clearly considered by the
Sentencing Commission when setting the Guidelines ranges.”); see
also United States v. Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 106 (4th Cir.
2012) (“Even if [defendant]’s sentence is more severe than
average, that fact does not mean that it was unwarranted.”). *
Thus, we affirm Geddie’s term of imprisonment.
*While Geddie also contends that the district court
considered an inappropriate factor because it stated it was
giving him the “benefit” of sustaining his objection to a
sentencing enhancement, we conclude that Geddie has taken this
statement out of context, as the district court proceeded to
(Continued)
4
Turning to the supervised release portion of the sentence,
the district court imposed a five-year term of supervised
release which, as the government notes, exceeds the statutory
maximum three-year term. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(a)(2),
3559(a)(3), 3583(b)(2) (2012). We conclude that the district
court plainly erred in so doing. See United States v. Moore,
810 F.3d 932, 939 (4th Cir. 2016) (setting forth standard of
review). Thus, we vacate this portion of the district court’s
judgment and remand for the district court to correct the term
of supervised release.
In sum, we affirm the sentence in part, vacate it in part,
and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
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 IN PART;
VACATED IN PART;
AND REMANDED
explain why the resulting Guidelines range was not an
appropriate sentence.
5