UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4592

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER E. MILLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:14-cr-00043-GRA-1)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lora Blanchard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United

States Attorney, William J. Watkins, Jr., Assistant United 

States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher E. Miller pled guilty to possession of 

child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2) (2012). 

At Miller’s sentencing hearing, his attorney requested a 

sentence below the advisory Guidelines range of 97-121 months’ 

imprisonment. The judge rejected Miller’s request and sentenced 

him to a 97-month term. He appeals, arguing that the district 

court failed to adequately provide an individualized reason as 

to why it rejected his request for a below-Guidelines sentence. 

We affirm. 

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an 

abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 46 (2007). This review requires appellate consideration of 

both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a 

sentence. Id. After determining whether the district court 

properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, 

this court must then consider whether the district court 

considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, analyzed any 

arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained 

the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–50; see Rita v. 

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346–47 (2007); United States v. 

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Finally, we review 

the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “taking into 

account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent 
3

of any variance from the Guidelines range.” United States v. 

Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). This court applies a presumption 

of correctness to a sentence within the properly-calculated 

Guidelines range. Rita, 551 U.S. at 346–47.

Here, the district court correctly calculated Miller’s 

Guidelines range and, after hearing his arguments for a belowGuidelines sentence, imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 97 

months. We find that the district court’s explanation was 

sufficient to show that the court conducted the sort of 

individualized sentencing analysis required under Gall and 

Carter. Moreover, Miller has failed to rebut the presumption of 

reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. 

Therefore, we find that Miller’s sentence is reasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm Miller’s sentence. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED