US v. James Hylton, No. 13-4290 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4290 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES BEARRIE HYLTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00292-TDS-1) Submitted: October 15, 2013 Decided: October 22, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, T. Nick Matkins, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James judgment Bearrie sentencing Hylton him to appeals seventy the months district court s imprisonment for possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(2) (2006). On appeal, Hylton argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. In doing so, we first examine the sentence for significant procedural error, including improperly calculating the advisory Guidelines as Sentencing mandatory, Guidelines failing to range, consider treating the 18 the U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors, choosing a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Id. at 51. We assess the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Mendoza Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we presume on appeal that the sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012). We conclude that Hylton s sentence, which was at the bottom of the properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range, is not considered substantively and unreasonable. rejected Hylton s 2 The arguments district for a court below- Guidelines sentence. history and finding that lack a of The court noted that Hylton s criminal employment history within-Guidelines weighed sentence was provide just punishment and protect the public. § 3553(a). against him, necessary to See 18 U.S.C. Because the district court acted well within its considerable discretion in making this finding, we conclude that Hylton has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a 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 material before this court and argument will not aid 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.
