**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 4574** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. PURAN HARISH PHULWANI , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Thomas D. Schroeder , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cr - 00369

- TDS

- 1 )

Submitted : March 14 , 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017

Before FLOYD and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Brian Michael Aus, BRIAN AUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Graham T. Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston

- Salem, North Carolina, for Appelle e.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Puran Harish Phulwani pled guilty to two counts of communicating threats, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c) (2012). The district court sentenced him to 44 months in prison as to each count, to be served concurrently. Phulwani argues on appeal that the district court erred in denying him a reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 ( 2015) , and that the d istrict court erred by declining to impose a downward depart ure or var iance based on his mental hea lth issues. We affirm
. This court reviews a district court’ s decision to deny an acceptance of responsibility adjustment for clear error. United
States v. Ruhe , 191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir. 1999). A defendant’ s postindictment criminal conduct may be sufficient justification for a district court’ s finding that the defendant has not fully accepted responsibility for his criminal behavior, United States v. Kidd , 12 F.3d 30, 34 (4th Cir. 1993), even where the underlying offense involves dissimilar conduct , United States v. Shivers , 146 Fed. Appx. 609, 611

- 12 (4th Cir. 2005)
. We have reviewed the briefs and materials submitted in the joint appendix and find no cl ear error in the district court ’ s decision to deny Phulwani a reduction in offense l evel for acceptance of responsib ility based on his postindictment conduct
.3 Phulwani also contends that the district court erred by declining to impose a downward departure or a downward variant sentence in light of his mental health issues. We review the district court ’ s sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse

- of

- discretion standa rd.” Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We presume that a sentence within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines range is reasonable, and this “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured aga inst the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors.” United States v. Louthian , 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). The district court considered Phulwani’s request for a
24

- month variant sentence in light of his mental health issues, b ut concluded that his len gthy criminal history, the need for deterrence , and the need to protect the public warranted a 44

- month

se ntence. Phulwani has not overcome the presumption that the district court’s decision to deny his variance request and impose a within

- Guidelines sentence was reasonable. See Louthian , 756 F.3d at 306.
In so far as Phulwani seeks review of the district court ’ s decision n ot to depart downward in sentencing him, we “lack the authority to review a sentencing court ’ s denial of a downward departure,” as the record does not suggest that “the court failed4 to understand its authority to do so.” United States v. Hackley , 662 F.3d 671, 686 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, w e affirm Phulwani’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions ar e adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED