UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4215
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS L. DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District
Judge. (3:15-cr-00156-JAG-1)
Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: December 14, 2016
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant,
Appellate Attorney, Laura J. Koenig, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente,
United States Attorney, Stephen E. Anthony, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas L. Davis pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court varied
upward and sentenced Davis to 84 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,
Davis argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We
affirm.
We review a sentence for procedural and substantive
reasonableness, applying “an abuse-of-discretion standard.”
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A district court
“has flexibility in fashioning a sentence outside of the Guidelines
range,” United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 U.S. 359, 364 (4th
Cir. 2011), and need only “set forth enough to satisfy the
appellate court that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments
and has a reasoned basis” for its decision, id. (quoting Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)). “In reviewing a variant
sentence, we consider whether the sentencing court acted
reasonably both with respect to its decision to impose such a
sentence and with respect to the extent of the divergence from the
sentencing range.” United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938, 944
(4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, the district court held that, even after
considering the mitigating evidence, an upward variance from the
Guidelines range of 30 to 37 months was justified based on Davis’
understated criminal record, his dangerousness, his lack of
2
respect for the law, and the need to protect the public. Having
reviewed the record and the district court’s thorough explanation
of its sentence, we conclude that Davis’ variance sentence is
substantively reasonable.
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