United States v. Larry Nichols, 4th Cir. (2013)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Larry Nichols, 4th Cir. (2013)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4818
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
LARRY DALE NICHOLS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.
James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:12-cr-00016-JPJ-PMS-1)
Submitted:
May 8, 2013
Decided:
May 24, 2013
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles
Michael
Henter,
HENTERLAW,
PLC,
Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States
Attorney, Jason S. Beaton, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry
Dale
Nichols
pleaded
guilty
to
conspiracy
to
provide a prohibited object to a federal inmate, in violation of
18 U.S.C. 371 (2006); possession of heroin by an inmate, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1791 (2006); and conspiracy to possess
with
846
intent
to
distribute
(2006).
The
heroin,
district
court
in
violation
sentenced
months of imprisonment and he now appeals.
of
21
Nichols
U.S.C.
to
151
Finding no error, we
affirm.
On
appeal,
the sentence.
Nichols
challenges
the
reasonableness
of
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d
330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009).
for
significant
calculate
(or
In so doing, we examine the sentence
procedural
improperly
error,
calculating)
including
the
failing
Guidelines
to
range,
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
[18 U.S.C.] 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence
based
on
clearly
erroneous
facts,
explain the chosen sentence.
or
failing
to
adequately
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
We will
presume on appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated
advisory
Guidelines
range
is
reasonable.
United
States
v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption of
2
reasonableness
for
within-Guidelines
sentence).
We
have
thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence is
both
procedurally
and
substantively
reasonable.
See
United
States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 271 (4th Cir. 2008) (appellate
courts
conclusion
that
different
sentence
might
be
appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district
courts judgment).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
