UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8052

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LAVON DOBIE, a/k/a Becky Parker, a/k/a Theresa Waller, a/k/a 

Dobie Parker,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-4208

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LAVON DOBIE, a/k/a Becky Parker, a/k/a Theresa Waller, a/k/a 

Dobie Parker,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. 

(8:04-cr-00235-RWT-9)

Submitted: September 25, 2013 Decided: October 17, 2013

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan A. Gladstone, LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN A. GLADSTONE, 

Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United 

States Attorney, Nicolas A. Mitchell, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Lavon Dobie appeals the 170-month sentence imposed 

following this court’s remand for consideration of her request 

for a minor role adjustment under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual § 3B1.2 (2012).* Dobie challenges the reasonableness of 

her sentence, arguing that the district court erroneously found 

that it was barred from sentencing Dobie below the Guidelines 

range and that the court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006) factors. We affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires 

consideration of both the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In determining 

procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district 

court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines 

range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an 

 * Dobie also appealed from the district court’s order 

denying her motion for retroactive application of the Fair 

Sentencing Act, giving rise to Appeal No. 12-8052, which was 

consolidated with Appeal No. 13-4208. Because Dobie’s brief 

challenges only the sentence imposed on resentencing, Dobie has 

abandoned any challenge to the application of the Fair 

Sentencing Act and we do not consider that issue here. See 

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 

1999) (noting that pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A), 

issues not briefed are deemed abandoned).
4

appropriate sentence, considered the § 3553(a) factors, or 

failed to explain sufficiently the selected sentence. Id. at 

49-51.

If the sentence is free of significant procedural 

error, we review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] 

into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. 

When, as here, the sentence is within the properly calculated 

Guidelines range, we apply a presumption on appeal that the 

sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. MendozaMendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). Such a presumption 

is rebutted only if the defendant shows “that the sentence is 

unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” 

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 

2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

The district court correctly calculated and considered 

the advisory Guidelines range, heard argument from counsel, and 

heard allocution from Dobie. Contrary to Dobie’s argument, the 

court considered the § 3553(a) factors and explained that the 

within-Guidelines sentence was warranted. The district court 

understood it had the authority to sentence Dobie below the 

Guidelines range but opted to impose a sentence at the bottom of 

that range. Dobie offers no argument to rebut the presumption 

on appeal that her within-Guidelines sentence is substantively 
5

reasonable. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Dobie. 

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