UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4587

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STEVEN FION LYONS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:08-cr-00206-BO-1)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. 

Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Steven Fion Lyons pled guilty to access device fraud, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(5), (c) (2006) (Count One) 

and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1028A(a)(1) (2006) (Count Two). Under the properly calculated 

advisory Sentencing Guidelines, his range of imprisonment was 

twelve to eighteen months on Count One, and the district court 

imposed a sentence of forty-eight months for that count. The 

district court also imposed a consecutive twenty-four month term 

of imprisonment on Count Two, as required by statute. Lyons 

appeals only the district court’s variance on Count One, 

claiming that the reasons given by the court were not legally 

sufficient or procedurally reasonable.

We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse 

of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). This review requires appellate consideration of both 

the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. 

Id. Procedural reasonableness is determined by reviewing

whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s 

advisory Guidelines range and then considered the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by 

the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.

Id. at 49-51. “Regardless of whether the district court imposes 

an above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on 
3

the record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the 

particular facts of the case before it.” United States v. 

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence is determined by “taking into 

account the ‘totality of the circumstances, including the extent 

of any variance from the Guidelines range.’” United States v. 

Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall, 552 

U.S. at 51).

We find the district court’s sentence was both 

procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court 

stated a number of specific reasons supporting its decision to 

vary upward on Count One, which reasons were fully supported by 

Lyons’ criminal history and the record before the court.*

 * Specifically, the district court stated that its variance 

was imposed: (1) because Lyons had multiple identity theft 

crimes over time and other crimes involving theft; (2) to 

provide Lyons sufficient time to obtain needed vocational 

training; (3) to afford adequate deterrence from further 

criminal conduct by removing Lyons from society for a period of 

time above that called for by the guidelines range; (4) to 

reflect the seriousness of the particular offense; and (5) to 

promote respect for the law. The record demonstrates that 

Lyons, whose work history was sporadic and unskilled, had been 

convicted of eleven felonies and ten misdemeanors, most of which 

involved identity theft; the longest time he had spent in prison 

was ten to twelve months.

 Nor do 

we find any reversible error in the fact that the district court 

denied on the record the Government’s motion to depart after 

announcing its variance decision, especially given that the 
4

court heard argument on the upward departure motion prior 

imposing the variance sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm Lyons’ sentence. 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