Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-04215/USCOURTS-ca4-16-04215-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas L. Davis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4215

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS L. DAVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:15-cr-00156-JAG-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: December 14, 2016 

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, 

Appellate Attorney, Laura J. Koenig, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, 

United States Attorney, Stephen E. Anthony, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4215 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/14/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas L. Davis pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a 

convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court varied 

upward and sentenced Davis to 84 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, 

Davis argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We 

affirm.

We review a sentence for procedural and substantive 

reasonableness, applying “an abuse-of-discretion standard.” 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A district court 

“has flexibility in fashioning a sentence outside of the Guidelines 

range,” United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 U.S. 359, 364 (4th 

Cir. 2011), and need only “set forth enough to satisfy the 

appellate court that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments 

and has a reasoned basis” for its decision, id. (quoting Rita v. 

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)). “In reviewing a variant 

sentence, we consider whether the sentencing court acted 

reasonably both with respect to its decision to impose such a 

sentence and with respect to the extent of the divergence from the 

sentencing range.” United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938, 944 

(4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In this case, the district court held that, even after 

considering the mitigating evidence, an upward variance from the 

Guidelines range of 30 to 37 months was justified based on Davis’ 

understated criminal record, his dangerousness, his lack of 

Appeal: 16-4215 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/14/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

respect for the law, and the need to protect the public. Having 

reviewed the record and the district court’s thorough explanation 

of its sentence, we conclude that Davis’ variance sentence is 

substantively reasonable. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

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

Appeal: 16-4215 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/14/2016 Pg: 3 of 3