US v. Eugene Brown, No. 14-4414 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4414 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. EUGENE A. BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:13-cr-00015-JPJ-PMS-1) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeline Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Kevin L. Jayne, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eugene A. Brown appeals from his eighty-four-month sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to being an inmate in a federal prison possessing marijuana, conspiracy to be an inmate in a federal prison possessing marijuana, possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, and conspiracy possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. to On appeal, Brown argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable due to the application of the career offender sentencing guideline and the severity of the sentence. We affirm. We review any criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly reasonableness, “under outside a the Guidelines deferential range,” for abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir. 2012); Gall see v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Where, as here, the defendant does not challenge the procedural reasonableness of his sentence, we review the sentence only for substantive standard. reasonableness, applying the abuse-of-discretion Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). “Any sentence that is within or below a [Sentencing] properly calculated presumptively can only be unreasonable [substantively] rebutted when by measured Guidelines reasonable. showing against 2 Such that the 18 the range a is presumption sentence U.S.C. is § 3553(a) [2012] factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). We reasonable. to be conclude that Brown’s sentence is substantively The district court did not consider the Guidelines mandatory and the application of the career offender guideline does not, in and of itself, rebut the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. defense counsel’s meaningfully sentence. and arguments with The district court responded to for a specificity, below-Guidelines and explained sentence its chosen Furthermore, Brown presents no evidence to rebut the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his within-Guidelines sentence. 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 3