US v. Larry Nichols, No. 12-4818 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4818 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. LARRY DALE NICHOLS, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 court s conclusion that a different sentence might be appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court s 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 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
