Court Opinion

ID: 9960716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 21:00:40.453835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:48.266704
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4632      Doc: 20         Filed: 04/15/2024    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4632

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        REGINALD DEWAYNE GRAY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:22-cr-00218-LCB-1)

        Submitted: April 11, 2024                                         Decided: April 15, 2024

        Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Charles L. White, Assistant Federal
        Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Margaret McCall Reece, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4632      Doc: 20         Filed: 04/15/2024     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Reginald Dewayne Gray pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). * The

        district court sentenced Gray to 65 months’ imprisonment—a sentence above the advisory

        Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

        California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal

        but questioning the reasonableness of the district court’s decision to impose an upward

        variance. Although informed of his right to do so, Gray has not filed a pro se supplemental

        brief, and the Government has elected not to file a brief. We affirm.

               We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

        Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.

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

        conducting this review, we must first ensure that the sentence is procedurally reasonable,

        “consider[ing] 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). If the sentence is free of “significant

               *
                 At the time Gray committed the § 922(g) offense in May 2022, § 924(a)(2)
        provided a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. Today, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8)
        sets forth the applicable statutory maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for
        violations of § 922(g) committed after June 25, 2022. See Bipartisan Safer Communities
        Act, Pub. L. No. 117-159, § 12004(c), 136 Stat. 1313, 1329 (2022).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4632       Doc: 20          Filed: 04/15/2024       Pg: 3 of 4

        procedural error,” we then review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account

        the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines

        range.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A sentence must be “sufficient, but

        not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the statutory purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a).

                “Where, as here, the district court imposes a sentence outside of the Guidelines

        range, [we] must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is

        sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.” United States v. Provance,

        944 F.3d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Though we may

        consider the extent of the deviation, we must give due deference to the district court’s

        decision that the . . . § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id.

        (internal quotation marks omitted). “The fact that we might have imposed a different

        sentence is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” Id.

                Here, the district court correctly calculated Gray’s advisory Guidelines range, heard

        argument from counsel, provided Gray an opportunity to allocute, considered the § 3553(a)

        sentencing factors, and thoroughly explained its reasons for imposing the chosen sentence.

        The court cited the serious nature and circumstances of the offense, including the extreme

        recklessness Gray showed by exchanging gunfire with another individual in a populated

        mall.   The court also noted that Gray’s criminal history involved numerous other

        convictions of firearm possession, suggesting a certain pattern of behavior. Although the

        court acknowledged Gray’s troubling childhood, it determined that the other factors

        weighed in favor of an upward variance and that a sentence of 65 months was sufficient

                                                        3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4632      Doc: 20          Filed: 04/15/2024     Pg: 4 of 4

        but not greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing. Based on these

        proceedings and the factors identified by the district court, we conclude that Gray’s

        sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

        This court requires that counsel inform Gray, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme

        Court of the United States for further review. If Gray requests that a petition be filed, but

        counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this

        court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy

        thereof was served on Gray. 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

                                                      4