Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
No. 10-5232
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00174-BO-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Julious Jerome Bullock appeals his 120-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924
(2006).
Bullock
requested
that
the
district
court
v.
Lynn,
establish
made;
plain
(2)
the
592
F.3d
error,
error
substantial rights.
572,
Bullock
is
578-80
must
plain;
and
(4th
show:
(3)
Cir.
(1)
the
2010).
an
error
error
To
was
affects
begin
by
reviewing
the
sentence
for
significant
Guidelines
(2007).
range.
Gall
v.
United
States,
552
U.S.
38,
51
an
individualized
presented.
Cir.
2009)
assessment
based
on
the
facts
Gall,
552
U.S.
at
50).
Accordingly,
courts
explanation
need
not
be
exhaustive;
it
Id.
must
be
sentence,
extensive,
while
the
still
district
court
individualized,
may
provide
explanation.
less
United
States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009), cert.
denied, 130 S. Ct. 2128 (2010).
that the appellate court need not guess at the district courts
rationale.
Carter,
564
F.3d
at
329-30
(internal
quotation
marks omitted).
We
recently
held
that
district
courts
sparse
findings
and
calculations
set
forth
in
the
presentence
(3) heard
defendant
opportunity
an
considered
the
argument
3553(a)
to
from
counsel;
allocute;
factors;
(5)
(6)
(4)
gave
stated
that
concluded
that
the
it
a
United
we
conclude
error
by
that
the
failing
to
district
provide
court
an
individualized
committed
See Gall,
In contrast to the
any
of
the
3553(a)
factors
or
find
that
(plain
errors
are
those
that
4
are
Guidelines
We further
or
obvious);
United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 658 (4th Cir. 2007)
(noting that the reasons for a particular sentence are to be
matched to a factor appropriate for consideration under 18
U.S.C.
3553(a)
and
clearly
tied
to
[the
defendants]
particular situation).
Bullock, however, fails to establish that a different
sentence
might
provided
have
more
been
imposed
lengthy
if
the
district
explanation.
The
court
district
had
court
is
district
nothing
court
to
would
suggest
have
that
further
resulted
in
discussion
different
by
the
sentence.
courts
explanation
constituted
plain
error
that
Bullocks
within-Guidelines
sentence
is
presumptively reasonable on appeal, see Rita, 551 U.S. at 34656; United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008), and
he has failed to rebut that presumption.
Montes-Pineda,
Cir.
445
F.3d
375,
379
(4th
2006)
(stating
Therefore, we
See Go,
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
legal
AFFIRMED