UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 07-4423

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

MILTON BYARD, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior 

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00165-5) 

Submitted: January 23, 2009 Decided: February 17, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Troy N. Giatras, THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States 

Attorney, Miller Bushong, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Milton Byard pled guilty to one count of conspiring to 

distribute a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 846 (2006). The district court properly calculated Byard’s 

advisory Guidelines range to be forty-six to fifty-seven months 

of imprisonment, and sentenced him to serve forty-six months. 

Byard appeals, alleging his sentence is procedurally 

unreasonable because the district court did not sufficiently 

consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors.* We 

have reviewed the record and affirm. 

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

review a sentence to determine whether it is unreasonable, 

applying a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. 

United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591, 594 (2007). A district 

court must engage in a multi-step process at sentencing. First, 

the sentencing court must calculate the appropriate Guidelines 

range by making any necessary factual findings. Id. at 596. 

Then the court should afford the parties “an opportunity to 

argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate.” Id. Next, 

it should consider the resulting advisory sentencing range in 

conjunction with the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and 

 *

 Byard does not challenge the calculation of his advisory 

Guidelines range. 

2 
determine whether the § 3553(a) factors support the sentence 

requested by either party. Id. Consideration of the factors in 

§ 3553(a) does not require the sentencing court to “robotically 

tick through” every subsection of § 3553(a). United States v. 

Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). 

 To determine whether a sentencing court abused its 

discretion, we undertake a two-part analysis. United States v. 

Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). First, we examine 

the sentence for “significant procedural errors,” and second, we 

evaluate the substance of the sentence. Id. Significant 

procedural errors include “‘failing to calculate (or improperly 

calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as 

mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting 

a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to 

adequately explain the chosen sentence . . . .’” Id. (quoting 

Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). “Substantive reasonableness review 

entails taking into account the ‘totality of the circumstances, 

including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines 

range.’” Id. (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). An appellate 

court may presume a sentence within the Guidelines range to be 

reasonable. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, __, 127 S. Ct. 

2456, 2459, 2462 (2007). 

3 
4 

 Here, the district court properly calculated Byard’s 

Guidelines range and adequately noted its consideration of the 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. We find no abuse of discretion in 

the district court’s decision to sentence Byard at the bottom of 

the Guidelines range. Accordingly, 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