UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4386
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM WALTER SPRUILL, a/k/a Pooh Pot,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Malcolm J.
Howard, Senior District Judge. (2:11-cr-00033-H-1)
Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
William Walter Spruill appeals his eighty-seven month
sentence imposed after he pled guilty to one count each of:
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2006); possession with intent to distribute a
quantity of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2006); possession with intent to distribute twenty-eight grams
or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2006); and possession of a firearm after being convicted of a
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(9), 924 (2006). Spruill’s sole argument on
appeal is that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Finding no error, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), 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 the court
to ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 160-61
(4th Cir. 2008). If, and only if, this court finds the sentence
procedurally reasonable can the court consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed. United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
2
Spruill raises no challenge to the procedural
reasonableness of his sentence. We thus presume that the
eighty-seven month sentence, which was at the bottom of
Spruill’s Guidelines range, is reasonable. See United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e may
and do treat on appeal a district court’s decision to impose a
sentence within the Guidelines range as presumptively
reasonable.”). Although Spruill asserts that he should have
been sentenced below his Guidelines range, we conclude that the
district court properly exercised its discretion to reject
Spruill’s arguments in mitigation. See Evans, 526 F.3d at 162
(recognizing that deference to a district court’s sentence is
required because the “sentencing judge is in a superior position
to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) in the
individual case”).
Because Spruill has failed to rebut the presumption
this court affords his within-Guidelines sentence, 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
3