UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4595
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PETER MICHAEL VANDERWERFF,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00311-NCT-1)
Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Anand P.
Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Peter Michael Vanderwerff appeals the reasonableness
of his 120-month sentence imposed after a plea of guilty to one
count of possessing materials containing visual images of child
pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2)
(West Supp. 2011). We affirm.
We review a sentence under a deferential abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). We first analyze the procedural reasonableness of the
sentence 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. In doing
so, 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 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
2
Contrary to Vanderwerff’s assertions, the record
discloses that the district court properly set the Guidelines
range at 120 months. Thus, we find no procedural
unreasonableness in the district court’s sentence. Nor do we
detect substantive unreasonableness in Vanderwerff’s within-
Guidelines sentence. ∗ The district court cogently explained its
rationale for imposing the statutory maximum sentence. In
affirming, we respect the district court’s broad discretion in
weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and imposing a
defendant’s sentence. See United States v. Jeffrey, 631 F.3d
669, 679 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 187 (2011).
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
∗
We acknowledge Appellant’s heavy reliance on the Second
Circuit’s reasoning in United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d
Cir. 2010) (critiquing the child pornography guideline). We are
not persuaded that the approach taken in that case compels us to
disturb the district court’s sentence here.
3