Court Opinion

ID: 9951381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 21:00:39.039048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:59.229009
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4093      Doc: 26         Filed: 03/14/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4093

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ROBERT EUGENE WILSON,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00019-JPB-JPM-1)

        Submitted: March 12, 2024                                         Decided: March 14, 2024

        Before GREGORY, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West
        Virginia, for Appellant. William Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Jennifer T. Conklin,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4093      Doc: 26         Filed: 03/14/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert Eugene Wilson pled guilty to solicitation of child pornography, in violation

        of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B), (b)(1). The district court sentenced Wilson to 240 months’

        imprisonment, a sentence within his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, to run

        consecutively to his undischarged Ohio state sentence for rape. On appeal, Wilson argues

        that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not adequately

        address his nonfrivolous argument in favor of running his federal sentence concurrent with

        his state sentence. We affirm.

               We “review all sentences . . . under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”

        United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). “Generally, we review the sentence for both its procedural and substantive

        reasonableness.” Id. “To determine whether a sentence is procedurally reasonable, this

        Court considers whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory

        [G]uidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence,

        considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected

        sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               “[T]he district court must address or consider all non-frivolous reasons presented

        for imposing a different sentence and explain why it has rejected those arguments.” United

        States v. Fowler, 58 F.4th 142, 153 (4th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). “[I]n a routine case, where

        the district court imposes a within-Guidelines sentence, the explanation need not be

        elaborate or lengthy.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4093      Doc: 26         Filed: 03/14/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

               Wilson argues that the district court failed to address his nonfrivolous argument

        requesting that his federal sentence run concurrently with his undischarged state sentence

        pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(b)(2) (2021). However, during

        Wilson’s argument at sentencing, the court correctly noted that the Guidelines’

        recommendation of a concurrent sentence was merely advisory and did not bind the court.

        Moreover, in response to Wilson’s argument that a consecutive sentence amounted to a life

        sentence, the court stated that Wilson was highly dangerous to the public given his past

        conduct and that he should never be released from prison. The court clearly noted its intent

        to exercise its discretion to impose a consecutive sentence.           Therefore, the court

        demonstrated a consideration of Wilson’s argument for a concurrent sentence, and his

        within-Guidelines sentence is procedurally reasonable.

               Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. 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

                                                     3