Case ID: f-appx_703/html/0210-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Bradford ASBURY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-4634
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 21, 2017
    Decided: November 27, 2017
    Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian Bradford Asbury pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distributé cocaine base and distribution of cocaine base and was sentenced to 110 months of imprisonment. Asbury argues that his sentence is not substantively reasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We examine substantive reasonableness considering the totality of the circumstances. Id. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated [Sentencing] Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [2012] factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted).

Asbury posits that his sentence is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. The district court meaningfully considered defense counsel’s suggestions for a lower sentence and explained its chosen sentence. Furthermore, Asbury presents no evidence to rebut the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his sentence.

We therefore affirm Asbury’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED