UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAUL DEWAYNE DORSEY, a/k/a Little Dorsey,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:09-cr-00468-PJM-13)
Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 3, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jenifer Wicks, LAW OFFICES OF JENIFER WICKS, Takoma Park,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Joseph R. Baldwin, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Paul Dewayne Dorsey pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack
cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and being a felon in possession
of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012). He was originally
sentenced to 137 months’ imprisonment — the top of the advisory
Guidelines range. This court later vacated Dorsey’s sentence
and remanded to the district court for re-sentencing after one
of his prior state court convictions was vacated. The district
court re-sentenced Dorsey to 105 months’ imprisonment — the top
of the agreed-upon advisory Guidelines range — followed by four
years of supervised release (the statutory mandatory minimum).
Dorsey appeals, claiming that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately
take into account his post-conviction rehabilitation. We
affirm.
We review Dorsey’s sentence for procedural and substantive
reasonableness, “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We
must ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines
range. Id. at 51. If there is no significant procedural error,
we then consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness under
“the totality of the circumstances.” Id. We presume that a
2
sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is
reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). A defendant can
rebut this presumption only “by showing that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors.” Id.
Dorsey concedes that the district court did not err in
calculating his advisory Guidelines, but he contends that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable. Having reviewed the
record, we conclude that Dorsey has not made the showing
necessary to rebut the presumption that his within-Guidelines
sentence is reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm. 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