US v. Leland Edwards, No. 14-4402 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4402 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LELAND KEITH EDWARDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cr-00375-WO-1) Submitted: December 9, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014 Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Greg Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leland Keith Edwards pled guilty in accordance with a written plea agreement to failure to register as a sex offender, 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (2012). in prison. Edwards He was sentenced to twenty-four months appeals, substantively unreasonable. claiming that his sentence is We affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Because Edwards asserts no procedural whether error, we consider the sentence is substantively reasonable, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances” court’s decision. within or below reasonable. and giving due See id. at 51. a properly deference to the district We presume that a sentence calculated Guidelines range is United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). Here, the district court reasonably determined that a sentence of twenty-four months was appropriate. sentence, 24-30 the months, court the considered 18 U.S.C. Edwards’ § 3553(a) In imposing Guidelines (2012) arguments of counsel and Edwards’ allocution. range factors, of the The court was particularly concerned that the instant conviction was Edwards’ second for recognized failure certain to register; complexities 2 however, associated the with court also registration requirements. The court noted that the offense was serious and stated that the sentence was tailored to protect the public and to deter similar conduct. Given the totality of the circumstances, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the presumptively reasonable, within-Guidelines sentence. We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3