UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4568
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAJAHN BROWN, a/k/a Big Bra,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (4:15-cr-00016-FL-1)
Submitted: May 26, 2016 Decided: May 31, 2016
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rajahn Brown pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute heroin and marijuana, two counts of possession with
intent to distribute and distribution of heroin, and possession
with intent to distribute marijuana and MDMA/Ecstasy. On appeal,
he challenges the reasonableness of the 204-month sentence imposed
by the district court. Finding no abuse of discretion in this
sentence, we affirm.
We “review all sentences — whether inside, just outside, or
significantly outside the Guidelines range — under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 41 (2007). Where, as here, the defendant does not assert
procedural sentencing error, we turn our attention to the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, considering “the
totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “Any sentence that is
within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is
presumptively [substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can
only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors.” United
States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.) (citation
omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). We conclude that
Brown has not met this burden.
Brown contends that the sentence imposed is greater than
necessary to meet the goals of the sentencing factors, citing his
2
tragic childhood and the probation officer’s comment that Brown’s
abusive childhood could be basis for a downward variance. The
court did, in fact, consider Brown’s difficult childhood in
mitigation, but, after consideration of the § 3553(a) factors,
determined that a 204-month sentence was appropriate. We conclude
that the district court adequately explained its reasons for the
sentence imposed and that Brown’s within-Guidelines range sentence
is reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; Louthian, 756 F.3d at
306 (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to a
sentence imposed within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines
range).
We therefore affirm Brown’s sentence. 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