United States v. David Fox ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-4027
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID EARL FOX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00053-CCE-15)
Submitted: August 9, 2018 Decided: August 28, 2018
Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Matthew G.T. Martin, United States Attorney, Terry M. Meinecke, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Earl Fox appeals his 121-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea
to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846
(2012). On appeal, Fox challenges the adequacy of the district court’s sentencing
explanation and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In evaluating the procedural
reasonableness of a sentence, we consider, among other things, whether the district court
adequately explained the chosen sentence, see id. at 51, and whether the court addressed
any nonfrivolous arguments for a different sentence, see United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d
513, 518-19 (4th Cir. 2017). The sentencing explanation need not be extensive as long as
we are satisfied that the district court “has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal
decisionmaking authority.” United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010)
(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).
If a sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” then we review it for
substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary,” to satisfy the goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). “Any
sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). “Such a
2
presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
The district court imposed a sentence at the low end of Fox’s Sentencing
Guidelines range, concluding that a 121-month sentence was necessary to afford just
punishment and to deter Fox from committing further crimes. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(A), (B). In reaching this decision, the court relied on Fox’s criminal history,
his attempt to accept responsibility by pleading guilty, the seriousness of the offense, and
his conduct while on pretrial release, which included using and selling
methamphetamine. The court also addressed each of Fox’s sentencing arguments,
reasoning that they did not warrant the variance sentence that Fox requested, but noting
that Fox’s arguments would factor into the court’s sentencing decision. Thus, our review
of the sentencing transcript reveals no abuse of discretion in the district court’s thorough
sentencing explanation. Furthermore, Fox points to nothing in the record that rebuts the
presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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