United States v. Larry Nichols

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4818

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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