UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4250
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICKY LEE CHAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:16-cr-00051-FL-1)
Submitted: December 15, 2017 Decided: February 12, 2018
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Acting Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-
Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Donald R. Pender, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Lee Chavis pled guilty, without the benefit of a plea agreement, to being a
felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2) (2012). The district court imposed a departure sentence of 65 months’
imprisonment, and Chavis appeals, arguing that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable. We affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We assess
a sentence’s substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at
51. Although an above-Guidelines-range sentence carries no presumption of
reasonableness on appeal, “a sentence outside the Guidelines carries no presumption of
unreasonableness.” Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708, 714 (2008). “[W]here the
district court decides that a sentence outside the Guidelines’ advisory range is
appropriate, it must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is
sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.” United States v. Zuk, 874
F.3d 398, 409 (4th Cir. 2017) (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).
“[A] major departure from the advisory range should be supported by a more significant
justification than a minor one.” Id. (internal quotation marks citation omitted).
We conclude that the sentence imposed in this case is substantively reasonable.
The district court found an upward departure warranted because Chavis had: committed
several unscored crimes as a teenager; been incarcerated for a lengthy period of time
following a prior conviction for murder; received 13 infractions while imprisoned; and
2
obtained, possessed, and used a firearm after his release. These acts speak directly to
several of the categories of information that the Sentencing Guidelines urge courts to
examine when considering a departure—prior unscored convictions, prior sentences that
substantially exceed one year, and prior similar adult criminal conduct that did not result
in a conviction. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3(a)(2), p.s. (2016).
The district court also reasonably applied the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors to determine that a 65-month sentence was appropriate. The court focused on
Chavis’ recidivism, lengthy history of violent conduct, and attempt at sentencing to
justify his criminal behavior when the court determined that protecting the public,
providing deterrence, and promoting respect for the law were of upmost importance. We
discern no abuse of discretion in that decision.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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