Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
No. 12-4840
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:12cr-00199-RWT-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
May 1, 2013
PER CURIAM:
Mischa Absolomon Walker appeals the district courts
judgment imposing a 120-month sentence following his guilty plea
to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
922(g)(1)
(2006).
Walker
argues
that
his
sentence
is
We
affirm.
We review Walkers sentence for reasonableness under
an abuse of discretion standard.
U.S.
38,
46,
51
(2007).
procedural
error[s],
improperly
calculating)
We
first
including
the
failing
Guidelines
for
to
range,
significant
calculate
(or
treating
the
[(2006)]
the
procedural
chosen
error,
individualized
factors,
sentence.
the
assessment,
.
552
district
wherein
or
failing
U.S.
court
it
at
to
adequately
51.
must
applies
the
To
make
avoid
an
relevant
to
address
sentencing
specific
the
See
2006)
(stating
indication
Montes-Pineda,
that
that
methodically
at
court
raised
the
States
the
factors
considered
United
hearing,
mitigating
it
district
445
F.3d
375,
380
court
must
only
provide
considered
the
potentially
(4th
district
court
articulated
its
consideration
some
meritorious
Cir.
Because
of
Walkers
characteristics,
we
conclude
that
Walkers
sentence
is
procedurally reasonable.
Walker also argues that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable.
sentence
is
substantively
reasonable.
United
States
v.
Such a
sentence
factors.
is
unreasonable
when
measured
against
the
3553(a)
marks omitted).
We conclude that Walkers 120-month, within-Guidelines
sentence
is
overcome
the
his
substantively
appellate
sentence.
The
reasonable,
presumption
district
court
of
as
Walker
fails
reasonableness
carefully
to
afforded
considered
the
the
serious
need
to
protect
the
public
from
Walker.
argues
that
his
sentence
is
substantively
improperly
applied
presumption
in
favor
of
the
The district
(J.A. 79). 2
be
the
only
sufficient
sentence
in
Walkers
case.
(J.A. 79).
(J.A. 79).
(J.A. 80).
Accordingly, we conclude
that
and
sentencing
district
that
court
where
did
not
an
comments
appellate
treat
the
must
court
be
viewed
believes
Guidelines
that
sentence
in
a
as
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