UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4464

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SYLVESTER LADALE NICHOLSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton 

Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00118-NCT-1)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: May 7, 2010

Before MICHAEL,* MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, 

Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

 * Judge Michael was a member of the original panel but did 

not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a 

quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Sylvester Ladale Nicholson pled guilty, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a 

convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). 

The district court sentenced Nicholson as an armed career 

criminal to 230 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we 

affirm.

On appeal, counsel contends that Nicholson’s sentence 

is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to 

accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). When 

determining a sentence, the district court must calculate the 

appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider it in 

conjunction with the factors set forth in § 3553(a). Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007). Further, the district 

court “must place on the record an individualized assessment [of 

the § 3553(a) factors] based on the particular facts of the case 

before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th 

Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a sentence, 

“whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the 

Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Gall, 552 U.S. 

at 41. A sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines 

range is presumed reasonable by this court. United States v. 

Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
4

Counsel contends that the district court committed 

procedural error by failing to consider Nicholson’s personal 

history in determining an appropriate sentence. See Gall, 552 

U.S. at 51 (listing as “significant procedural error” a district 

court’s “fail[ure] to consider the § 3553(a) factors”). The 

record does not support this assertion. Nicholson’s personal 

history was detailed in the Presentence Investigation Report and 

highlighted by counsel during his sentencing argument. The 

district court acknowledged counsel’s argument and agreed that 

the circumstances of Nicholson’s past were significant. 

However, the court noted its concern that the current offense 

involved a shooting and that Nicholson had a violent criminal 

history. Thus, the court concluded that protection of the 

public outweighed other § 3553(a) factors. We cannot conclude 

on this record that the district court committed significant 

procedural error by failing to consider Nicholson’s history. 

Nor can we conclude based on the district court’s analysis that 

imposition of a 230-month sentence was substantively 

unreasonable, particularly in light of the presumption of 

reasonableness we may afford properly calculated withinGuidelines sentences. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 

347 (2007).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 
5

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED