UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4610
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALLEN GREY BEASLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:11-cr-00037-JPJ-PMS-1)
Submitted: April 8, 2013 Decided: April 16, 2013
Before DAVIS, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael L. Dennis, GALUMBECK, DENNIS & KEGLEY, Tazewell,
Virginia, for Appellant. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Allen Grey Beasley appeals the 240-month, downward
departure sentence he received on his conviction of conspiring
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and
846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2012). Although the Government has filed
a motion to dismiss the appeal under United States v. Hill, 70
F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995), as challenging only the extent of
the substantial assistance downward departure that Beasley
received, we believe that Beasley’s appellate arguments are
better read as essentially challenging his sentence as
procedurally and substantively unreasonable, as measured against
the sentence received by one of his codefendants who did not
provide substantial assistance to the Government. We therefore
deny the Government’s motion.
Nevertheless, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We discern no procedural error with the district court’s
computation of the Guidelines range or its weighing of the
various applicable factors — including the sentence received by
Beasley’s codefendant — in determining the length of Beasley’s
sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007);
see also 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), (e) (2006); U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 5G1.1(b). Nor has Beasley identified any
reason to disturb the presumptive substantive reasonableness of
2
his below-Guidelines sentence. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d
278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012) (a sentence falling below the advisory
Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable).
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3