US v. Jonathan Layne, No. 13-4443 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4443 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JONATHAN DOUGLAS LAYNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:12-cr-00209-1) Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, William Bryan King, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jonathan Douglas Layne appeals the district court s judgment sentencing him to 120 months imprisonment followed by twenty years pornography (2012). supervised in violation release of 18 for possession U.S.C. child 2252A(a)(5), § of (b)(2) On appeal, Layne argues that the term of supervised release imposed is substantively unreasonable. The reviewed for length its of a term reasonableness of We affirm. supervised using the same, release is deferential, abuse-of-discretion standards used for challenges to any other part of the defendant s sentence. United States v. Collins, 684 F.3d 873, 887 (9th Cir. 2012); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). the We under the the substantive reasonableness of circumstances. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). sentence assess totality of the 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 which is conclude within the that applicable substantively unreasonable. lengthy term of Layne s supervised supervised Guidelines release range, term, is not The district court concluded that a release was necessary, based on Layne s criminal history and sexual proclivities, to protect the 2 public and § 3553(a). to deter him from reoffending. See 18 U.S.C. Because the district court acted well within its considerable discretion in making this finding, we conclude that Layne 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 * We have considered Layne s arguments concerning the impact of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D1.2(b) (2012), and are unpersuaded that consideration of the Guideline rendered his supervised release term unreasonable. 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.
