UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4248

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBIN LYNN GEORGE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00189-WO-2)

Submitted: November 3, 2016 Decided: November 10, 2016

Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Anand P. 

Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robin Lynn George pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of

a minor by a parent for the production of child pornography, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b), (e) (2012). The district 

court imposed a below-Guidelines 252-month sentence. George 

appeals, claiming that the sentence is substantively 

unreasonable. George contends that the district court’s 

sentence exceeds the length necessary to satisfy the purposes of 

sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012).

We review a sentence for reasonableness under “a 

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

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Reasonableness has both 

procedural and substantive components. Id. To evaluate 

substantive reasonableness, we consider “the totality of the 

circumstances.” Id.

The court presumes reasonable the length of a downwardvariance sentence. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 

(4th Cir. 2012). We may consider the extent that a sentence 

varies from the applicable Guidelines range, “but must give due 

deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) 

factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” 

United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 366 (4th Cir. 

2011). Section 3553(a) provides that the court should consider 

the following factors when imposing a sentence:
3

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and 

the history and characteristics of the defendant;

(2) the need for the sentence imposed--

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, 

to promote respect for the law, and to provide 

just punishment for the offense;

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal 

conduct;

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of 

the defendant; and

(D) to provide the defendant with needed 

educational or vocational training, medical care, 

or other correctional treatment in the most 

effective manner[.]

After reviewing the record, we find that George failed to 

rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded her downwardvariance sentence. The district court contemplated all the 

mitigating factors that George cites on appeal: the unusualness 

of her behavior while dating the man who coerced her offenses, 

her susceptibility to that coercion, and her vulnerability after 

the death of her husband. The court also assessed the nature 

and circumstances of the offense without overvaluing it. 

Finally, the court addressed each of the four factors listed in 

§ 3553(a)(2), sufficiently accounting for all the purposes of 

sentencing. Thus, the court imposed a substantively reasonable 

sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED