US v. Reginald Bullock, No. 14-4480 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4480 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REGINALD EARL BULLOCK, Defendant -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-00408-TDS-1) Submitted: November 24, 2014 Decided: December 4, 2014 Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Stephen T. Inman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Reginald pleading guilty violation appeal, of 18 Bullock Earl to Bullock possession U.S.C. appeals of a firearm §§ 922(g)(1), contends that his his sentence by 924(a)(2) sentence is a after felon (2012). in On unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). We affirm. We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness using an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. McManus, 734 F.3d 315, 317 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). Because Bullock does not point out any procedural improprieties in his sentence, we limit our review to its substantive reasonableness. See United States v. Wallace, 515 F.3d 327, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2008). within or below a properly substantively reasonable. 289 (4th Cir. 2012). We presume a sentence calculated Guidelines range is United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, The presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). We have reviewed the record and Bullock’s arguments, and we conclude that his sentence is substantively reasonable. “[D]istrict courts have extremely broad discretion when determining the weight to be given [to] each of the § 3553(a) 2 factors.” 2011). United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. The district court correctly calculated that Bullock’s Guidelines range was 57 to 71 months and reasonably determined that a 63-month appropriate in sentence this § 3553(a) factors. case in in the middle light of of his the range arguments and was the Based on a totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, and we accord deference to its sentencing decisions. See United States v. Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 106 (4th Cir. 2012). 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