UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4753
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARTKES BENNETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (4:15-cr-00013-D-1)
Submitted: September 16, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016
Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Barbara D. Kocher, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Artkes Bennett appeals his 192-month sentence following his
guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent
to distribute a quantity of methamphetamine and a quantity of
heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846 (2012),
distribution of a quantity of methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012), and possession with
intent to distribute a quantity of heroin, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). On appeal, Bennett contends only
that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We disagree.
We “consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In doing so, we must “take into
account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent
of any variance from the [Sentencing] Guidelines range.” Id.
We presume that a sentence within a properly calculated
Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v.
Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). A defendant can
rebut this presumption only “by showing that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
[(2012)] factors.” Id.
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that Bennett has
not made the showing necessary to rebut the presumption that his
within-Guidelines-range sentence is substantively reasonable.
2
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