UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4051
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK MURPHY, a/k/a Carlos Sentrell Murphy, a/k/a Mark
Murphy, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00086-FL-1)
Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 7, 2012
Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Murphy pled guilty to being a felon in possession
of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006) (Count 1) and
knowingly possessing a stolen firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(j)
(2006) (Count 2). Murphy’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range
was 92-115 months of imprisonment and he was sentenced to 115
months. On appeal, Murphy argues that the district court
committed procedural error in determining his sentence because
it did not adequately address counsel’s argument that a lower
sentence was appropriate because of his close family ties. For
the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness applying a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). In determining whether a
district court committed any significant procedural error, we
look to any failure in the calculation (or the improper
calculation) of the Guidelines range, the treatment of the
Guidelines as mandatory, the failure to consider 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) (2006) factors, the selection of a sentence using
clearly erroneous facts, and any failure to adequately explain
the chosen sentence, including any deviation from the advisory
Guidelines range. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Although an individualized explanation must accompany
every sentence, United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th
2
Cir. 2010); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.
2009), a sentencing court need not necessarily issue a
comprehensive and detailed opinion, although the court’s
explanation must nonetheless be sufficient to satisfy the
appellate court that the district court considered the parties’
arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal
decisionmaking authority. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d
832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010). When the judge decides simply to
apply the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, however, “doing so
will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-57 (2007). Moreover, if a
sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we apply a
presumption on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. United
States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008); United
States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita,
551 U.S. at 347.
Here, the district court noted it was not imposing a
fine because Murphy had dependents, his two daughters.
Moreover, the court discussed the Bureau of Prisons’ practice of
trying to incarcerate prisoners near their families. Thus, we
find evidence that the court considered Murphy’s close family
ties argument. Moreover, the court expressly considered the
§ 3553(a) factors, listened to the arguments of counsel and to
Murphy himself, and imposed a sentence within a properly
3
calculated advisory Guidelines range. Under these
circumstances, we find that Murphy has provided no grounds to
overcome the appellate presumption of correctness of his within-
Guidelines range sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm Murphy’s sentence. 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