UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15
- 4731

UNITED STATES OR AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ANTONIO D A SH A WN PITT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:14

- cr - 00277

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : March 12, 2020 Decided: March 16, 2020

Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief Appellate Attorney , OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assis tant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Antoni o D a sha wn Pitt pled guilty, without a written plea agreement, to armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2018); and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2018)

. Th e district court sentenced Pitt to 125 months’ imprisonment, the bottom of his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Pitt argues that h is sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm. We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range , ” for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse

- of

- discretion standard.” Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see United States v. Blue , 877 F.3d 513, 517 (4th Cir. 2017). This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See Blue , 877 F.3d at 517. We have confirmed that Pitt’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. See United States v.
Provance , 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). To be substantively reasonable, the sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the statutory purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2018) . In assessing substantive reasonableness, we consider “the totality of the cir cumstances.” Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when

measur ed against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian , 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).3 Pitt argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it does not account for the role his mental illness played in his behavior. To the contrary, the court recognized that Pitt’s behavior was influenced , in part , by his mental illness and, therefore, included recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons and conditions of supervised release designed to ensure that Pitt receive s necessary mental health treatment. The court, however, carefully balanced Pitt’s mental health and other mitigating factors identified by counsel with the seriousness of the crime s , the need for deterrence, and the need to protect the public. Ou r review convinces us that the court carefully evaluated the § 3553(a) factors and gave due consideration to Pitt’s arguments in mitigation, including his mental illness, when imposing a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range. Pitt , therefore, has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his sentence

. 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 argum ent would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED