USCA4 Appeal: 21-4021 Doc: 40 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PHILIP STEPHEN STALLINGS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cr-00635-WO-1)

Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Seth A. Neyhart, LAW OFFICE OF SETH A. NEYHART, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, Eric L. Iverson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-4021 Doc: 40 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Philip Stephen Stallings pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

transporting child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1), (b)(1). The

district court sentenced Stallings to 150 months’ imprisonment, a sentence below the

advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Stallings argues that his sentence is

substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly

outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard.” Gall v. United States,

(2007); see United States v. Blue,

(4th Cir. 2017). This review requires consideration of both the procedural

and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Blue,

. In determining

procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the

defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an

appropriate sentence, considered the

(a) factors, and sufficiently

explained the selected sentence. Gall,

. We have confirmed that

Stallings’ sentence is procedurally reasonable. See United States v. Provance,

(4th Cir. 2019).

If there are no procedural errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of

the sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” Gall,

. A

sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the statutory

purposes of sentencing.

(a). “Any sentence that is within or below a

properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable. Such a

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4021 Doc: 40 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when

measured against the

(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian,

(4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

Stallings argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district

court did not give adequate weight or consideration to several of the relevant factors in

Stallings’ background. However, the record shows that the district court considered the

sentencing factors raised by defense counsel and engaged defense counsel in an extensive

discussion of these factors. Ultimately, the court granted a downward variance but noted

that it would not vary as far as defense counsel requested because it weighed defense

counsel’s arguments differently. Our review convinces us that the district court carefully

evaluated the § 3553(a) factors and gave due consideration to Stallings’ mitigating

arguments when imposing its sentence. In light of the “extremely broad” discretion

afforded to a district court in determining the weight to be given each of the § 3553(a)

factors in imposing sentence, United States v. Jeffery,

(4th Cir. 2011),

Stallings fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded his below-Guidelines

sentence. Accordingly, we conclude that Stallings’ sentence is substantively reasonable.

We therefore affirm the 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