UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5176
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN WESLEY ROBINSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:08-cr-00586-CCB-1)
Submitted: January 30, 2012 Decided: February 6, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Ebise Bayisa, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Clinton J. Fuchs,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Wesley Robinson, Jr., was convicted by a jury of
unlawfully possessing a firearm while a convicted felon, and was
sentenced to a term of 110 months’ imprisonment. Robinson
appeals his sentence, contending that the district court erred
in applying a 2-level enhancement for a stolen firearm, U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) (2009), and that
his sentence was unreasonable. We affirm.
Robinson contends that the district court committed
legal error when it applied the stolen gun enhancement, given
that there was no evidence he knew the gun was stolen. He
argues that, under those circumstances, the enhancement was
inconsistent with federal law and did not further the goals of
sentencing. Robinson’s argument is foreclosed by our decision
in United States v. Taylor, 659 F.3d 339, 343-44 (4th Cir. 2011)
(holding that lack of mens rea requirement does not invalidate
§ 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) enhancement).
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse
of discretion standard, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007), which requires consideration of both the procedural and
substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.; see United
States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). In
determining the procedural reasonableness of a sentence, we
consider whether the district court properly calculated the
2
defendant’s Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as
advisory, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors,
analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at
51. A sentence imposed within a properly calculated Guidelines
range may be presumed substantively reasonable by the appellate
court. Taylor, 659 F.3d at 345.
Robinson maintains that the enhanced base offense
level he received under § 2K2.1(a)(2) in light of his two prior
felony convictions for rape and drug distribution overstates the
seriousness of his criminal history and resulted in a
substantively unreasonable sentence. He also argues that the
sentence is greater than necessary because (1) he simply
possessed the gun; (2) the district court failed to consider his
steady employment and close family ties; (3) the sentence is
much longer than his previous sentences; and (4) the sentence
will impede his rehabilitation.
We conclude that the sentence imposed by the district
court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The
court properly calculated Robinson’s advisory Guidelines range,
considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors, and gave a reasoned
explanation for the sentence imposed within the applicable
sentencing range. Robinson has not overcome the presumption of
reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines sentence.
3
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the
district court. 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