UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4386

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM WALTER SPRUILL, a/k/a Pooh Pot,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Malcolm J. 

Howard, Senior District Judge. (2:11-cr-00033-H-1)

Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer 

P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Walter Spruill appeals his eighty-seven month 

sentence imposed after he pled guilty to one count each of:

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 

twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 846 (2006); possession with intent to distribute a 

quantity of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) 

(2006); possession with intent to distribute twenty-eight grams 

or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) 

(2006); and possession of a firearm after being convicted of a 

misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(9), 924 (2006). Spruill’s sole argument on 

appeal is that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

Finding no error, we affirm.

After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we 

review a sentence for reasonableness, using an abuse of 

discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires the court 

to ensure that the district court committed no significant 

procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 160-61 

(4th Cir. 2008). If, and only if, this court finds the sentence 

procedurally reasonable can the court consider the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence imposed. United States v. 

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). 
3

Spruill raises no challenge to the procedural 

reasonableness of his sentence. We thus presume that the 

eighty-seven month sentence, which was at the bottom of 

Spruill’s Guidelines range, is reasonable. See United States v. 

Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e may 

and do treat on appeal a district court’s decision to impose a 

sentence within the Guidelines range as presumptively 

reasonable.”). Although Spruill asserts that he should have 

been sentenced below his Guidelines range, we conclude that the 

district court properly exercised its discretion to reject 

Spruill’s arguments in mitigation. See Evans, 526 F.3d at 162 

(recognizing that deference to a district court’s sentence is 

required because the “sentencing judge is in a superior position 

to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) in the 

individual case”).

Because Spruill has failed to rebut the presumption 

this court affords his within-Guidelines 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 the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED