UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4516
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES ANTHONY BULLOCK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00277-D-1)
Submitted: January 31, 2013 Decided: February 8, 2013
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and
Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Anthony Bullock was sentenced to 120 months’
imprisonment after pleading guilty to one count of being a felon
in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1)(2006). He appeals his sentence, contending that the
district court erred in departing upwardly notwithstanding his
acceptance of responsibility and assistance to the Government.
Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In reviewing a sentence for
reasonableness, we first consider whether the district court
committed significant procedural error, such as failing to
calculate or improperly calculating the sentencing Guidelines
range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors, or inadequately explaining its selected sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In the absence of significant procedural
error, we next consider whether the sentence is substantively
reasonable, taking into account the totality of the
circumstances, including the extent of any deviation from the
Guidelines range. Id.
When sentencing, the district court must begin by
correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range. United
States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 164 (4th Cir. 2008). Next, it
2
must consider whether or not a Guidelines sentence should apply.
Id. The district court may deviate from the Guidelines range
where it concludes that a Guidelines provision warrants a
departure, that the § 3553(a) factors warrant a variance, or
that a deviation is warranted regardless. Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007). Whether the district court
bases its decision to deviate on the Guidelines or some other
factor, it must provide adequate justification for the extent of
its deviation. Evans, 526 F.3d at 164-66. A more significant
departure should be supported by a more significant
justification. Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. Nonetheless, both within-
and outside-Guidelines sentences are subject to the same
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51.
Accordingly, in reviewing for reasonableness, this
court may consider the extent of the district court’s deviation
from the Guidelines, but must give deference to the district
court’s decision that the totality of the circumstances
justifies the sentence imposed. Id. This deference is based on
the district court’s superior position to see and hear the
evidence, to make credibility determinations, and to find facts
and judge their import. Id. Accordingly, “[t]he fact that the
appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different
sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of
the district court.” Id.
3
Bullock does not challenge the procedural
reasonableness of his sentence. Rather, his sole contention on
appeal is that the district court imposed a substantively
unreasonable sentence by departing upward notwithstanding his
acceptance of responsibility and assistance to the Government.
We conclude that this contention lacks merit.
After correctly calculating Bullock’s initial
Guidelines range, the district court determined that an upward
departure pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3
(2011) — which permits an upward departure where a defendant’s
criminal history category substantially underrepresents his
criminal history or likelihood of recidivism — was warranted.
The district court provided detailed justifications both for its
decision to depart and for the extent of the departure —
including Bullock’s substantial criminal history, which included
forty-seven convictions, the serious nature and circumstances of
his offense, which involved firing a gun in front of an elderly
woman and several children, and his dire need of specific
deterrence, which was evidenced by his immediate return upon
release from custody to the site of his offense to further
threaten his victims. The district court accordingly determined
that, notwithstanding Bullock’s admission of guilt and
assistance to authorities, the totality of the circumstances
justified a 120-month sentence.
4
The district court’s decision to depart from the
Guidelines was amply supported, and its justification for the
extent of its departure was sufficiently compelling. Evans, 526
F.3d at 164-66. Bullock’s sentence is therefore substantively
reasonable. Accordingly, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5