UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4084
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEON EUGENE SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:15-cr-00172-1)
Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 10, 2016
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christian M. Capece, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Research & Writing Specialist, David R. Bungard, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Carol A. Casto, Acting United States Attorney,
Miller Bushong, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leon Eugene Smith appeals the 60-month sentence imposed
upon his plea of guilty to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review Smith’s sentence for both 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
Sentencing 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, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range.” Id.
Smith raises no claim of procedural error but argues that
the district court erred by varying upward from the advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range of 33 to 41 months’ imprisonment.
The district court thoroughly explained its decision that, given
Smith’s history and characteristics, a 60-month sentence was
sufficient but not greater than necessary to accomplish the
goals of deterrence, promoting respect for the law, and
protecting the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). Our
review of the record convinces us that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in so finding and that, therefore,
2
Smith’s sentence is both procedurally and 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