UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-4669

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PRESTON STAVON BULLOCK,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 18-4690

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PRESTON STAVON BULLOCK,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, 

at Elizabeth City and Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00017-D1; 4:18-cr-00002-D-1)

Submitted: June 26, 2019 Decided: July 5, 2019
2

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Preston Bullock appeals the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea 

to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012)

(No. 18-4690), and the 24-month consecutive sentence imposed for violating the

conditions of his supervised release (No. 18-4669). Bullock argues that his criminal 

sentence on the firearm offense is substantively unreasonable and that his revocation 

sentence penalized him a second time for the offense conduct punished by his criminal 

conviction, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. We affirm. 

“We review a sentence for reasonableness ‘under a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.’” United States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). The parties do not dispute that Bullock’s criminal 

sentence is procedurally reasonable.1

 See Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51. 

Accordingly, we next consider whether the sentence imposed is substantively 

reasonable under “the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance 

from the [Sentencing] Guidelines range.” Id. at 51. When a district court departs from or 

imposes a sentence outside of the Guidelines range, we “must consider the extent of the 

deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree 

of the variance.” United States v. Zuk, 874 F.3d 398, 409 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). But the district court need not find “extraordinary 

 1 Bullock does not challenge the reasonableness of his revocation sentence, so we 

decline to consider that issue on appeal. See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 

856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017). 
4

circumstances” to justify a deviation from the Guidelines range. Gall, 552 U.S. at 47. In 

this case, the district court cited the nature of the offense, the characteristics of Bullock, 

the need to provide just punishment, and the need to protect the public. And the district 

court specifically explained its view that the advisory Guidelines were inadequate on the 

facts at hand. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that these 

circumstances justified an upward departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 

§ 4A1.3, p.s. (2016), and an upward variance from the post departure advisory Guidelines 

range. 

We review double jeopardy claims de novo. United States v. Schnittker, 

807 F.3d 77, 81 (4th Cir. 2015). But Bullock’s argument that revocation sentences 

violate the Double Jeopardy Clause is foreclosed by controlling precedent.2

 United 

States v. Woodrup, 86 F.3d 359, 361 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, the district court 

based its revocation on Bullock’s breach of trust, not the offense conduct giving rise to 

his firearm conviction. Thus, this claim is meritless. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgments. 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

 2 Although Bullock points to Gamble v. United States, __ S. Ct. __, No. 17-646, 

2019 WL 2493923 (U.S. June 17, 2019), as support for the double jeopardy claim, 

Gamble is inapposite.