United States v. Willie Robinson , 575 F. App'x 197 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4710
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIE LOUIS ROBINSON, a/k/a King Louie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cr-00219-WO-1)
Submitted: June 12, 2014 Decided: June 20, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Craven III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Robinson appeals the 240-month below-Guidelines
sentence imposed by the district court following his convictions
by a jury of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2012), and five counts of
distributing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2012). On appeal, Robinson’s sole
contention is that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “an
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). Where, as here, there is no allegation of
significant procedural error, we review the sentence for
substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality
of the circumstances.” Id. If the sentence is within or below
the Guidelines range, we presume on appeal that the sentence is
reasonable. United States v. Yooho Weon, 772 F.3d 583, 590 (4th
Cir. 2013).
We conclude that Robinson has failed to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his below-
Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445
F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006). The district court took into
account all of the factors identified by Robinson on appeal and
weighed them according to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
2
factors. The court concluded that, in spite of Robinson’s
serious offense conduct and the need for deterrence, his age and
the sentencing disparity for cocaine base offenses warranted a
substantial variance below the Guidelines range. We conclude
that Robinson’s general attacks do not show that the district
court improperly weighed the § 3553(a) factors. Therefore, his
sentence is substantively reasonable.
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