UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4491
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DAVID L. NORMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00004-jpj-pms-2)
Submitted: September 26, 2011 Decided: October 3, 2011
Before DAVIS and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Nancy Combs
Dickenson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine
Madeleine Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States
Attorney, Debbie H. Stevens, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David L. Norman pled guilty to one count of possession
of a prohibited object in prison in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1791(a)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced Norman at the
top of the Guidelines range to thirty months’ imprisonment.
Norman appeals his sentence, contending that the court summarily
rejected his argument that his extended period in punitive
segregation in the Special Housing Unit warranted a variance or
departure from the advisory Guidelines range. Norman also
contends that the court failed to articulate why the factors
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) supported a sentence at the top
end of the advisory Guidelines range. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A reasonableness review
includes both procedural and substantive components. Id. A
sentence is procedurally reasonable where the district court
committed no significant procedural errors, such as improperly
calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or insufficiently explaining
the selected sentence. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832,
837-38 (4th Cir. 2010). The substantive reasonableness of a
sentence is assessed in light of the totality of the
circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. While a sentence may be
2
substantively unreasonable if the § 3553(a) factors do not
support the sentence, “[r]eviewing courts must be mindful that,
regardless of ‘the individual case,’ the ‘deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard of review . . . applies to all
sentencing decisions.’” United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630
F.3d 359, 366 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2946 (2011)
(citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 52). Moreover, a sentence that falls
within a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.
2007).
We find Norman’s claims to be without merit. The
record discloses that the district court properly considered the
factors under § 3553(a), and explained why the thirty-month
sentence was imposed. The court expressly mentioned Norman’s
tenure in the Special Housing Unit as a factor for
consideration, and stated that if not for his time there, the
court might have imposed a longer sentence.
We accordingly affirm the conviction and sentence. 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