USCA4 Appeal: 23-4726 Doc: 29 Filed: 10/15/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4726

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JIMMIE LEE BENJAMIN HANEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cr-00074-CCE-1)

Submitted: October 10, 2024 Decided: October 15, 2024

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Ira Knight, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4726 Doc: 29 Filed: 10/15/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Jimmie Lee Benjamin Haney pled guilty to one count of destruction by fire of a

building used in interstate commerce, in violation of

(i), and two counts of

bank robbery, in violation of

(a). The district court sentenced Haney to

156 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Haney argues that the district court abused its

discretion when it denied his request for a downward variant sentence, because he asserts

that his sentence is greater than necessary given his history and characteristics, and his

designation as a career offender overrepresents his criminal history. Finding no error, we

affirm.

“We review all sentences for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-of-

discretion standard.” United States v. McCain,

(4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned

up). In doing so, “[o]ur inquiry proceeds in two steps.” United States v. Friend,

(4th Cir. 2021). First, we must “ensure that the district court committed no

significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the

[Sentencing] Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider

the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or

failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

“Only if we determine that the sentence is procedurally reasonable do we then

proceed to substantive reasonableness.” Id. In considering the substantive reasonableness

of a sentence, we “take[] into account the totality of the circumstances to determine whether

the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied

the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. Nance,

(4th Cir.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4726 Doc: 29 Filed: 10/15/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A]ny sentence that is within or below a

properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v.

Gillespie,

(4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). A

defendant can rebut that presumption only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable

when measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Bennett,

(4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We find Haney’s within-Guidelines sentence to be both procedurally and

substantively reasonable. Review of the record reveals no procedural flaws in Haney’s

sentencing, and, indeed, he makes no assertion that his sentence was tainted by procedural

error. Substantively, the district court expressly considered Haney’s history and

characteristics, as well as the § 3553(a) factors, and adequately explained its rejection of

his request for a downward variance and its reasons for imposing the 156-month sentence.

Therefore, Haney has not overcome the presumption of reasonableness applied to his

sentence.

Accordingly, we 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