UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4604
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RICKY ALLEN MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00018-JAB-1)
Submitted: February 5, 2013 Decided: February 27, 2013
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Carlyle Sherrill, III, SHERRILL & CAMERON, PLLC, Salisbury,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States
Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Moore pled guilty to being a felon in possession
of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a)(2)
(2006). The district court sentenced Moore to twenty-one
months’ imprisonment, to run consecutively with a state sentence
imposed for violation of the terms of Moore’s probation. On
appeal, Moore argues that the district court abused its
discretion by imposing a consecutive sentence. For the
following reasons, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a
deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v.
Diosdado–Star, 630 F.3d 359, 363 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131
S. Ct. 2946 (2011). We first review for significant procedural
errors, including whether the district court failed to consider
the § 3553(a) factors. Gall, 552 U.S. at 46. If we find a
sentence procedurally reasonable, we then consider substantive
reasonableness, applying a totality of the circumstances test.
Id. Finally, where, as here, the sentence is within the
Guidelines range, the court may apply a presumption of
reasonableness. Id.
Moore contends that his sentence is procedurally
unreasonable because the district court did not explicitly
consider the factors in the commentary to U.S. Sentencing
2
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 5G1.3(c) (2011) for imposing a
sentence on a defendant already subject to an undischarged term
of imprisonment. A district court “need not engage in
ritualistic incantation in order to establish its consideration
of a legal issue. It is sufficient if . . . the district court
rules on issues that have been fully presented for
determination. Consideration is implicit in the court's
ultimate ruling.” United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th
Cir. 1995) (dealing with the district court’s alleged failure to
consider Guidelines policy statements when revoking a
defendant’s supervised release). The central issue at Moore’s
sentencing hearing was whether to impose a consecutive sentence;
the issue was fully presented and argued. Therefore, we
conclude that Moore’s sentence is procedurally reasonable.
Moore also contends that the district court did not
provide sufficient reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence.
We disagree. The district court explained that it believed a
consecutive sentence was necessary to give effect to the
punishment imposed for the crime that Moore had committed, which
was separate from the sentence imposed as a result of his parole
violation. We discern no infirmity in this reasoning.
Therefore, we conclude that Moore’s sentence is also
substantively reasonable and that the district court did not
abuse its discretion.
3
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 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