UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4150
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASPER BUCK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:15-cr-00029-GLR-1)
Submitted: September 20, 2016 Decided: October 13, 2016
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Sean R. Delaney,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jasper Buck appeals his sentence of 120 months’
imprisonment after pleading guilty to mail fraud. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
We ordinarily review a criminal sentence “under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We “first ensure that the
district court committed no significant procedural error, such
as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, . . . or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51. If there is no
significant procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s
substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the
circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range.” Id.
Buck argues that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to address sufficiently his arguments at sentencing
regarding his age and health, and the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Our review of
the record reveals that the district court carefully considered
Buck’s arguments and sufficiently explained its reasons for
placing greater weight on other sentencing factors. Buck also
claims that the district court abused its discretion by imposing
2
a 120-month sentence, which represented an upward variance from
the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 63 to 78 months.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find that the
district court did not act unreasonably in deciding to impose a
variant sentence or determining the extent of the variance. See
United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938, 944 (4th Cir. 2014).
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