UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4502
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
JANELL TOVAH FISHER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cr-00024-HEH-1)
Submitted:
January 27, 2014
Decided:
February 11, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Bodner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente,
Acting United States Attorney, Erik S. Siebert, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Janell
Tovah
Fisher
appeals
from
the
120-month
sentence imposed by the district court after his guilty plea to
possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012).
On appeal, Fisher claims
that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable
because the district court (1) overstated his criminal history
and failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2012) factors
when
imposing
an
upward
variance;
(2)
failed
to
consider
unwarranted sentencing disparities that could result from the
imposition
of
the
upward
variance;
excessively lengthy upward variance.
and
(3)
imposed
an
We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard.
38, 46, 51 (2007).
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
We first review for significant procedural
error, and, if the sentence is free from such error, we then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
51.
Procedural
error
includes
improperly
Id. at
calculating[]
the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to
consider
adequately
the
explain
3553(a)
the
factors,
chosen
sentence.
or
Id.
failing
to
Substantive
reasonableness is determined by considering the totality of the
circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range.
Id.
An upward variance is permitted where
2
justified by the 3553(a) factors.
See id.
We must give due
deference to the district courts decision that the 3553(a)
factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance, and
the fact that we might find a different sentence appropriate is
insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.
first
is
procedurally
sentence
We
conclude
that
Fishers
reasonable. *
Id.
above-Guidelines
The
district
court
properly calculated Fishers Guidelines range (and Fisher does
not
contend
adequately
otherwise),
explained
treated
the
the
selected
range
as
advisory,
sentence.
The
and
court
specifically explained that Fishers above-Guidelines sentence
was
warranted
because
the
offense
indicated
involvement
in
significant drug-trafficking activity, Fisher had an extensive
criminal record, and Fishers prior experience with the criminal
justice
system
lacked
the
desired
deterrent
effect.
In
addition, the court considered that the total offense level was
inadequate to reflect Fishers criminal history.
Further, the
court
noting
explicitly
addressed
Fishers
arguments,
that
counsels arguments had persuaded it to impose a sentence lower
than
the
sentence
advocated
by
the
Government.
While
the
district court did not specifically address Fishers argument
The advisory Guidelines range was seventy to eighty-seven
months.
regarding
state
unwarranted
that
Because
it
the
took
sentencing
into
account
disparities,
district
court
all
the
clearly
the
court
sentencing
considered
did
factors.
Fishers
individual circumstances, we conclude that Fishers sentence is
procedurally reasonable.
We also hold that Fishers sentence is substantively
reasonable,
including
sentence
considering
the
is
extent
nearly
the
of
three
totality
the
of
the
variance.
years
above
circumstances,
Although
the
Fishers
high-end
of
the
advisory Guidelines range, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in determining that such a deviation was justified by
the 3553(a) factors, including Fishers criminal history, the
need to protect the public, and the need to provide adequate
deterrence.
Thus, we conclude that Fishers 120-month sentence
is reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.
We
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED