Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles MANU, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-23
Citations: 671 F. App'x 43
Docket Number: No. 16-4407
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles MANU, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 43–43

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles MANU, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-4407
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 17, 2016
Decided: November 23, 2016
Brendan S. Leary, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlen-feld, II, United States Attorney, David J. Perri, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Manu pled guilty to possession of unauthorized access devices, 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3), 1029(e)(l)(A)(i) (2012), and was sentenced to 24 months in prison. He now appeals, challenging the reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.
The record reflects that the district court properly determined that Manu's Guidelines range was 6-12 months, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors and the arguments of the parties, and provided a sufficiently individualized assessment based on the facts of the case. The court explained that it had varied above the Guidelines range because Manu had not cooperated fully with investigators, had recently committed a similar offense in Kentucky, and had not been truthful with his probation officer about his claimed past employment. Wé conclude that the sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
We therefore affirm. 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