UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4412

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GENE LEGRAND HICKMAN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cr-00414-WO-1)

Submitted: August 23, 2022 Decided: August 25, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: William Stimson Trivette, WILLIAM S. TRIVETTE, ATTORNEY AT 

LAW, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States

Attorney, Eric L. Iverson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4412 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Gene Legrand Hickman, Jr., pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1). The district court assessed a Sentencing 

Guidelines range of 240 months—the statutory maximum—and sentenced Hickman to 228 

months’ imprisonment, followed by a lifetime term of supervised release. On appeal, 

Hickman contends that his sentence is unreasonable. For the following reasons, we affirm.

We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse of discretion 

standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In doing so, we first examine the 

sentence for procedural error, which includes “failing to calculate (or improperly 

calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider 

the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or 

failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51. We then review the 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the 

circumstances.” Id. A sentence is presumptively substantively reasonable if it “is within 

or below a properly calculated Guidelines range.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 

306 (4th Cir. 2014). This “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence 

is unreasonable when measured against 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.

Although Hickman challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, 

we must first consider the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. See United States v. 

Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). Having reviewed the record, we conclude 

that the sentence is procedurally reasonable. Hickman contends that his sentence is 

substantively unreasonable because some Sentencing Guidelines enhancements he 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4412 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

received apply to most child pornography offenders, he expressed remorse for his conduct,

his lack of a criminal history, and his personal characteristics. However, the district court 

thoroughly and reasonably explained why a 228-month sentence was warranted. Based on 

the factors identified by the district court, we conclude that Hickman has failed to rebut the 

presumption of reasonableness afforded to his below-Guidelines sentence.

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

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4412 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 3 of 3