UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4824
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LACEY LEROY MCCLAM, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-01277-TLW-1)
Submitted: February 28, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
T. Kirk Truslow, T. KIRK TRUSLOW, P.A., North Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lacey Leroy McClam, Jr., appeals the 276-month
sentence of imprisonment imposed by the district court following
a jury conviction for one count of armed robbery in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2006), and one count of brandishing a
firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2006). On appeal,
McClam argues that the sentence is procedurally and
substantively unreasonable. * We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, using an
abuse of discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires
us to ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161
(4th Cir. 2008).
McClam claims that the sentence is procedurally
unreasonable because the district court failed to consider his
motion for a downward departure based on his post-sentencing
rehabilitation conduct, failed to render an individualized
assessment, and failed to adequately explain the reasons for the
*
In a prior decision, this court affirmed McClam’s
convictions but remanded for resentencing. United States v.
McClam, 417 F. App’x 281 (4th Cir. 2011) (No. 09-4737). McClam
challenges the resentencing in this appeal.
2
chosen sentence. After reviewing the record, we conclude that
the district court did not commit procedural error when imposing
sentence. The district court expressly considered and rejected
McClam’s argument in support of a lower sentence based on his
post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts. See Pepper v. United
States, 131 S. Ct. 1229, 1236 (2011) (holding that a district
court at resentencing may consider evidence of a defendant’s
post-sentencing rehabilitation in support of a downward
variance). The court also provided an individualized assessment
based on the facts presented and thoroughly articulated its
reasons for imposing the chosen sentence. Accordingly, we
conclude that the sentence is not procedurally unreasonable.
Once we have determined there is no procedural
sentencing error, we must next consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, “taking into account the
totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Having
reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court
thoroughly analyzed the totality of McClam’s circumstances and
carefully weighed them against the § 3553(a) factors when
imposing the 276-month sentence, 192 months for the robbery
conviction and a consecutive sentence of eighty-four months for
the firearms offense. Thus, we conclude that the sentence is
substantively reasonable.
3
Thus, finding McClam’s sentence both procedurally and
substantively reasonable, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the material
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4