United States v. Fowlkes, 082912 FED4, 11-5102
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM:|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SEAN DARNELL FOWLKES, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Andrew R. Szekely, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Michael C. Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||August 29, 2012|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
Submitted: July 24, 2012
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00332-CCB-1)
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Sean Darnell Fowlkes was convicted of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006), and sentenced to sixty months in prison. He now appeals his sentence, claiming that it is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
Fowlkes' advisory Guidelines range was 41-51 months. The district court gave a lengthy explanation for imposing the variance sentence of sixty months. Among other things, the court mentioned the serious nature of the offense and observed that Fowlkes possessed the gun and ammunition "within a couple of years" of his release on parole from a state sentence. Additionally, the court was troubled by Fowlkes' significant criminal record, which included drug possession, battery, and assault. Finally, the court expressed its concern that Fowlkes had demonstrated no remorse or acceptance of responsibility. The court concluded that a sixty-month sentence was necessary to deter future criminal behavior and to protect the public.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires evaluation of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). Fowlkes does not challenge the procedural reasonableness of his sentence.
In evaluating a sentence for substantive reasonableness, we consider "whether the sentence was reasonable — i.e., whether the [d]istrict [j]udge abused [her] discretion in determining that the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors supported [the sentence] and justified a substantial deviation from the Guidelines range." Gall, 552 U.S. at 56....
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP