Court Opinion

ID: 9400320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 21:00:29.964107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:43.541123
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4431      Doc: 30         Filed: 06/06/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4431

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JAMES GRAY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00044-JPB-JPM-1)

        Submitted: April 27, 2023                                             Decided: June 6, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Frank C. Walker II, FRANK WALKER LAW, Clairton, Pennsylvania, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-4431       Doc: 30          Filed: 06/06/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               James Gray appeals his 120-month sentence imposed following a jury conviction

        for unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)

        (2018). On appeal, Gray argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantively

        unreasonable. We affirm.

               We     review    a   sentence    for    reasonableness,    applying     “a   deferential

        abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir.

        2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Gray argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court

        erred by failing to incrementally depart and explain its incremental departure from a

        criminal history category of VI to an extrapolated category of IX. After reviewing the

        record, we conclude that the district court deviated from the Guidelines range based on

        Gray’s extensive criminal history, its impact on the community, the need to promote

        respect for the law, and the need for deterrence. Thus, Gray’s sentence is not procedurally

        unreasonable.

               Next, Gray argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the extent

        of the variance was not justified by the applicable § 3553(a) factors and was greater than

        necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing. Having reviewed the record and accorded

        due deference to the district court, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion

        in varying upward from a 70- to 87-month Guidelines range to a 120-month sentence.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4431      Doc: 30         Filed: 06/06/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

               We therefore affirm the district court’s 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