UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4092
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
XAVIER DIAMOND LUCKEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00226-TDS-1)
Submitted: October 12, 2011 Decided: November 1, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Clifton T.
Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Xavier Diamond Luckey pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to one count of possession of ammunition by a
convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)
(2006). The district court imposed a custodial sentence of 180
months followed by five years of supervised release. Luckey
appeals the length of the term of supervised release. We
affirm.
We review a sentence under a deferential abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). First, we inspect for procedural reasonableness by
ensuring that the district court committed no significant
procedural errors, such as failing to calculate or improperly
calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately
explain the sentence. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832,
837-38 (4th Cir. 2010). We then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the
totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We
presume that a sentence within a properly-calculated Guidelines
range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193
(4th Cir. 2007). That presumption may be rebutted by a showing
“that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the [18
U.S.C.] § 3553 factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445
2
F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
The district court provided a cogent and adequate
explanation for its imposition of Luckey’s sentence. It
explained both the mitigating and the aggravating factors that
formed the basis for the sentence. The five-year term of
supervised release was within the advisory Guidelines range and
Luckey has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness
that attaches to such a sentence.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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