UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4390
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KAREEM BLIGEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00278-PMD-1)
Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: January 5, 2012
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kareem Bligen appeals the 151-month sentence imposed
after he pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to
distribute and distribution of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (West 1999 & Supp 2011). Bligen argues
that his sentence is procedurally and substantively
unreasonable. Specifically, he contends that the district court
erred in treating the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory
and in sentencing him as a career offender.
This Court reviews a sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 47, 51 (2007); United States v. Layton, 564
F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, the Court first
examines the sentence for “significant procedural error,”
including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The Court then
“‘considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed.’” United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.
2008) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51) (alteration omitted).
There is no dispute that the district court correctly
calculated Bligen’s Guidelines range. This Court presumes that
2
a sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines
range is reasonable. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218
(4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56
(2007) (upholding appellate presumption of reasonableness for
within-Guidelines sentence). In rejecting Bligen’s request for
a below-Guidelines sentence, the court considered the § 3553
sentencing factors and determined that they were best served by
the imposition of a within-Guidelines sentence.
A district court may deviate from the advisory
Guidelines range. Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 91,
109-10 (2007). Here, the district court expressly informed
Bligen of the court’s authority to do so during Bligen’s change-
of-plea hearing. We have reviewed the record and conclude that
the district court understood its authority to depart or vary
from the Guidelines. Bligen has thus failed to establish
grounds for relief as to his first argument.
Bligen’s arguments that the court erred in sentencing
him as a career offender and that the court imposed a
substantively unreasonable sentence are similarly without merit.
Bligen acknowledges that he was sentenced as a career offender
because he had two previous convictions for controlled substance
offenses. Bligen fails to explain how the court erred in
sentencing him as a career offender, given that he indisputably
meets the criteria for classification as a career offender.
3
Bligen also fails to show how his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. His sentence is within the Guidelines range and
he has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. Rita,
551 U.S. at 346-56.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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
4