UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4567
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY TYSHAUN NIXON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (7:15-cr-00024-D-1)
Submitted: October 31, 2016 Decided: November 4, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Tyshaun Nixon appeals the 120-month sentence
imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Nixon challenges
the district court’s application of a two-level sentencing
enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) (2014) for Nixon’s possession of between three
and seven firearms and the district court’s decision to depart
upwardly from the Sentencing Guidelines range. The Government
disputes the allegations of error but contends that any such
error would be harmless because it had no effect on the sentence
the district court imposed. We agree with the Government and
affirm the district court’s judgment.
We may proceed directly to an assumed error harmlessness
inquiry without assessing the merits of Nixon’s challenge to the
Guidelines calculation. United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750
F.3d 370, 382 (4th Cir. 2014). “A Guidelines error is
considered harmless if we determine that (1) ‘the district court
would have reached the same result even if it had decided the
guidelines issue the other way,’ and (2) ‘the sentence would be
reasonable even if the guidelines issue had been decided in the
defendant’s favor.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Savillon-
Matute, 636 F.3d 119, 123 (4th Cir. 2011)).
2
In this case, the district court explicitly stated that it
would have given Nixon a 120-month sentence even if it had
incorrectly calculated his Guidelines range. The district court
also discussed each of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
sentencing factors in support of its decision to impose a 120-
month term. Given the district court’s reasoning and the
deferential standard of review we apply when reviewing criminal
sentences, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 59-60
(2007), we conclude that Nixon’s sentence would be substantively
reasonable even if the disputed issue had been resolved in his
favor. See Savillon-Matute, 636 F.3d at 123-24. Therefore, any
error in the district court’s Guidelines calculation is
harmless.
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