Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04827/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04827-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barry Ray Howard
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4827

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

BARRY RAY HOWARD,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:14-cr-00188-CCE-1)

Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John D. Bryson, WYATT, EARLY, HARRIS & WHEELER, LLP, High Point, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States 

Attorney, Kennedy Gates, Special Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4827 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Barry Ray Howard was sentenced to 112 months’ imprisonment 

after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted 

felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012). 

He appeals, contending that the district court erred by denying 

his request for a downward variance. Finding no error, we 

affirm.

This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, applying 

“a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In reviewing a sentence for 

reasonableness, we first consider whether “the district court 

committed . . . significant procedural error.” Id. at 51. If 

there is no such error, we next consider whether the sentence is 

substantively reasonable, “tak[ing] into account the totality of 

the circumstances.” Id. We presume that “[a] sentence within 

the [advisory] Guidelines range is . . . substantively 

reasonable.” United States v. Helton, 782 F.3d 148, 151 (4th 

Cir. 2015).

We conclude that Howard’s within-Guidelines sentence is 

both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district 

court considered Howard’s arguments for a variance and credited 

them as a reason not to impose a sentence at the statutory 

maximum. The court then thoroughly explained why other 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors justified a sentence within the 

Appeal: 14-4827 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

advisory Guidelines range. Moreover, Howard has failed to rebut 

the presumption that his sentence is substantively reasonable. 

See United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 176 (4th Cir. 2014). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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: 14-4827 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/21/2015 Pg: 3 of 3