US v. Lavaris Perry, No. 14-4458 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4458 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LAVARIS JAMIL PERRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00414-TDS-1) Submitted: November 21, 2014 Decided: December 10, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Robert M. Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lavaris Jamil Perry pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess and utter counterfeit securities and one count of possessing and uttering counterfeit months’ securities. imprisonment, restitution. He three was years sentenced of to supervised twenty-seven release, On appeal, Perry challenges his sentence. and Finding no error, we affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a “deferential abuse-of-discretion States, 552 U.S. 38, 52 (2007). sentencing court including improper insufficient factors, committed and standard.” “significant inadequate of v. United We first consider whether the calculation consideration Gall the of 18 the explanation procedural Guidelines U.S.C. of the error,” range, § 3553(a) sentence (2012) imposed. Id. at 51; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). In assessing Guidelines calculations, we review factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de novo, and unpreserved arguments for plain error. United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012). If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, we also consider its substantive reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575. The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to 2 comply with the purposes” of sentencing. We presume on appeal that a 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable, and the defendant bears the burden to “rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable United States when measured v. against Montes-Pineda, 445 the § 3553(a) F.3d 375, 379 factors.” (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review, we find Perry’s within-Guidelines sentence to be both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court expressly considered the § 3553(a) factors, and Perry has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his sentence. court’s judgment. facts and materials legal before Accordingly, we affirm the district We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3