US v. Maurlin Flowers, No. 12-4776 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4776 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MAURLIN ANTONIO FLOWERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00111-CCE-1) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Andrew C. Cochran, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Maurlin Antonio Flowers pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, convicted felon, in 924(a)(2) (2006). to possession violation of The district 18 court thirty-seven months imprisonment. of a firearm U.S.C. by a §§ 922(g)(1), sentenced Flowers to On appeal, Flowers asserts that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court declined to grant a downward variance. We review Flowers s abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). We affirm. sentence under a deferential Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). After determining whether the district court correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines considered presented the by range, § 3553(a) the selected sentence. we must factors, parties, and decide whether analyzed sufficiently the the court arguments explained the Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575-76; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Once we have determined that the sentence is free of procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, circumstances. tak[ing] into account the totality of the Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575. If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we 2 apply a presumption on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). Such a presumption is rebutted only if the defendant demonstrates that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 2006) (internal quotation district court marks omitted). Flowers alleges that the failing to grant a downward variance. erred in We conclude, however, that Flowers sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Flowers does not assert any specific procedural error, and our review of the record confirms that the district court properly detailed considered individualized the § 3553(a) assessment, factors, responded provided to a defense counsel s argument for a below-Guidelines sentence, and clearly explained the imposed sentence. Furthermore, our review of the record leads us to conclude that Flowers has not overcome the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his within- Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3