UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4776
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MAURLIN ANTONIO FLOWERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00111-CCE-1)
Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Andrew C. Cochran, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Maurlin Antonio Flowers pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced Flowers to
thirty-seven months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Flowers asserts
that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court
declined to grant a downward variance. We affirm.
We review Flowers’s sentence under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id.;
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). After
determining whether the district court correctly calculated the
advisory Guidelines range, we must decide whether the court
considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed the arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575-76; United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
Once we have determined that the sentence is free of
procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the
circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575.
If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we
2
apply a presumption on appeal that the sentence is reasonable.
United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir.
2010). Such a presumption is rebutted only if the defendant
demonstrates “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda,
445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Flowers alleges that the district court erred in
failing to grant a downward variance. We conclude, however,
that Flowers’ sentence is both procedurally and substantively
reasonable. Flowers does not assert any specific procedural
error, and our review of the record confirms that the district
court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors, provided a
detailed individualized assessment, responded to defense
counsel’s argument for a below-Guidelines sentence, and clearly
explained the imposed sentence. Furthermore, our review of the
record leads us to conclude that Flowers has not overcome the
presumption of reasonableness applicable to his within-
Guidelines sentence.
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
3