UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4248
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBIN LYNN GEORGE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00189-WO-2)
Submitted: November 3, 2016 Decided: November 10, 2016
Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Anand P.
Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robin Lynn George pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of
a minor by a parent for the production of child pornography, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b), (e) (2012). The district
court imposed a below-Guidelines 252-month sentence. George
appeals, claiming that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable. George contends that the district court’s
sentence exceeds the length necessary to satisfy the purposes of
sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012).
We review a sentence for reasonableness under “a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Reasonableness has both
procedural and substantive components. Id. To evaluate
substantive reasonableness, we consider “the totality of the
circumstances.” Id.
The court presumes reasonable the length of a downward-
variance sentence. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289
(4th Cir. 2012). We may consider the extent that a sentence
varies from the applicable Guidelines range, “but must give due
deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a)
factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.”
United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 366 (4th Cir.
2011). Section 3553(a) provides that the court should consider
the following factors when imposing a sentence:
2
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and
the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed--
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
to promote respect for the law, and to provide
just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of
the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed
educational or vocational training, medical care,
or other correctional treatment in the most
effective manner[.]
After reviewing the record, we find that George failed to
rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded her downward-
variance sentence. The district court contemplated all the
mitigating factors that George cites on appeal: the unusualness
of her behavior while dating the man who coerced her offenses,
her susceptibility to that coercion, and her vulnerability after
the death of her husband. The court also assessed the nature
and circumstances of the offense without overvaluing it.
Finally, the court addressed each of the four factors listed in
§ 3553(a)(2), sufficiently accounting for all the purposes of
sentencing. Thus, the court imposed a substantively reasonable
sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4