UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4818
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LARRY DALE NICHOLS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:12-cr-00016-JPJ-PMS-1)
Submitted: May 8, 2013 Decided: May 24, 2013
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Michael Henter, HENTERLAW, PLC, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States
Attorney, Jason S. Beaton, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Dale Nichols pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
provide a prohibited object to a federal inmate, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006); possession of heroin by an inmate, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791 (2006); and conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2006). The district court sentenced Nichols to 151
months of imprisonment and he now appeals. Finding no error, we
affirm.
On appeal, Nichols challenges the reasonableness of
the sentence. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d
330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we examine the sentence
for “significant procedural error,” including “failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range,
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We will
presume on appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated
advisory Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption of
2
reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). We have
thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence is
both procedurally and substantively reasonable. See United
States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 271 (4th Cir. 2008) (appellate
court’s conclusion that a different sentence might be
appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district
court’s judgment).
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 in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3