US v. Gary King, Jr., No. 13-4946 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4946 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GARY LEE KING, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00361-GRA-2) Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 29, 2014 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, BLUME NORRIS & FRANKLIN-BEST, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Max B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary agreement, to Lee King, Jr., of possession pled firearm a guilty, without and a ammunition plea by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). The district court sentenced King to the Guidelines sentence of 120 months imprisonment. On appeal, King argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a downward variance. Specifically, King contends that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court provided no indication that it considered his nonfrivolous argument that incarceration will be more difficult for him than for other prisoners because he is an amputee. King also avers that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We review a sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In determining procedural other reasonableness, we consider, among factors, whether the district court adequately analyzed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. In explaining its sentence, the district court is not required to subsection, robotically particularly tick 2 § imposing when through a 3553(a) s every within-Guidelines sentence. United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). defendant imposing or a prosecutor different presents sentence However, [w]here the nonfrivolous than that set reasons forth for in the advisory Guidelines, a district judge should address the party s arguments United and States (internal explain v. why Carter, quotation he 564 marks has rejected F.3d 325, omitted). those 328 Such (4th an arguments. Cir. 2009) explanation is necessary to promote the perception of fair sentencing and to permit meaningful appellate review. Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. It may be possible, however, for an appellate court to evaluate from explanation . [t]he . . context both § 3553(a) factors States Montes-Pineda, v. and surrounding whether whether 445 it F.3d the did a district court so 375, court s considered properly. 381 (4th the United Cir. 2006). Where the record clearly reveals that the court considered the parties arguments and relevant evidence and the case is conceptually simple, the law does not require the court to write more extensively. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007). Although King correctly notes that the district court s explanation is devoid of any reference to his argument regarding the difficulty of imprisonment for amputees, the record provides enough context for this court to confidently 3 conclude that the district court considered King s argument. any event, the court analyzed the § 3553(a) factors In before imposing sentence and we can find no indication in the record that the court would have imposed a different sentence had it more explicitly considered King s argument difficulty of imprisonment for amputees. regarding the See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 585 (4th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that an error is harmless if it did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the result (internal quotation marks omitted)). Having found no significant procedural error, we next consider tak[ing] the substantive into account Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. reasonableness the totality of of King s the sentence, circumstances. We apply a presumption on appeal that King s Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. Yooho Weon, 722 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013). Such a presumption may rebutted only by a showing that the sentence is unreasonable when Montes-Pineda, 445 measured against F.3d 379 at the § (internal 3553(a) factors. quotation marks omitted). We showing. conclude that King has failed to make such a Far from ignoring King s special needs when imposing sentence, the court honored counsel s request to house King in a medical facility. 4 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 5
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.
