US v. Eric Lyons, No. 14-4039 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4039 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC M. LYONS, a/k/a Marc, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (8:12-cr-00581-GLR-1) Submitted: July 17, 2014 Decided: July 21, 2014 Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mirriam Z. Seddiq, MIRRIAM Z. SEDDIQ, P.C., Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. John Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric M. Lyons pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2012). At sentencing and with Lyons consent, the district court granted the Government s motion to strike would See from have 21 Lyons the triggered U.S.C. to indictment a the drug five-year § 841(b)(1)(B). forty-three months quantity mandatory The that otherwise minimum sentence. district imprisonment, court which sentenced was three months below the bottom of his advisory Guidelines range. Counsel for Lyons has filed this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious district court grounds failed to for appeal consider but the arguing sentencing that the disparity between Lyons and his co-defendant in determining the extent of the downward variance. Although advised of his right to do so, Lyons has declined to file a pro se supplemental brief. Government has not filed a response brief. The For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We review any criminal sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly reasonableness, standard. under outside a the Guidelines deferential range, for abuse-of-discretion United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir. 2 2012); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate the defendant s advisory Guidelines range and consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). Gall, 552 U.S. at 49 50. The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Lyons, appropriately treating the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Lyons complains that the district court failed to consider the sentencing disparity between him and his co-defendant. However, as we have repeatedly stated, the sentencing factor addressing sentencing disparities, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), is aimed primarily at eliminating national sentencing inequity, not differences between the sentences of co-defendants. United States v. Withers, 100 F.3d 1142, 1149 (4th Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Simmons, 501 F.3d 620, 623 24 (6th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases). Finally, we observe that the court provided sufficient reasoning for the downward variance it selected for Lyons. Having discerned no procedural error, we next consider the substantive reasonableness of Lyons sentence, tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. 3 Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. calculated Because Guidelines Lyons sentence range, we is presume sentence is substantively reasonable. 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012). below on the appeal properly that the United States v. Susi, This presumption may only be rebutted if Lyons shows that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against Montes Pineda, the 445 § 3553(a) F.3d 375, factors. 379 (4th United Cir. States 2006) v. (internal quotation marks omitted). Lyons account for the substantively persuasive claims that the sentencing disparity unreasonable. when viewed reasonableness review. district This through court s renders lens to his sentence is no contention the failure of more substantive Furthermore, our review of the record reveals no viable basis upon which to question the substantive reasonableness of Lyons downward variant sentence. We thus conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in selecting this sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. entered Lyons and therefore guilty supported affirm the by plea an was knowingly independent district court s and basis in judgment. voluntarily fact. This We court requires that counsel inform Lyons, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the 4 United States for further review. If Lyons requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Lyons. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.