USCA4 Appeal: 23-4533 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4533

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES LINWOOD WILSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (2:23-cr-00003-D-RJ-1)

Submitted: September 30, 2024 Decided: October 24, 2024

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4533 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

James Linwood Wilson pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with

intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of

(a)(1), 846; and distributing

and aiding and abetting distribution of cocaine, in violation of

(a)(1) and

. The district court imposed a 162-month term of imprisonment. Finding no

reversible error, we affirm.

At sentencing, Wilson argued in mitigation that a sentence within the Sentencing

Guidelines range would essentially be a life sentence given his serious health conditions

and decreased life expectancy. In imposing Wilson’s sentence, the district court

acknowledged Wilson’s arguments regarding his poor health but emphasized his long

history of recidivism and drug dealing. On appeal, Wilson challenges his sentence as

procedurally and substantively unreasonable. First, he asserts that the district court failed

to address his argument that a sentence within the Guidelines would equate to a life

sentence. Second, Wilson contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable as a de

facto life sentence for run-of-the-mill drug dealing.

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

discretion standard.” Gall v. United States,

(2007). We first consider

whether the sentencing court committed “significant procedural error,” including

inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed.

; see United States v. Lynn,

(4th Cir. 2010). In explaining its sentence, the “court must address or

consider all non-frivolous reasons presented for imposing a different sentence and explain

why it has rejected those arguments.” United States v. Webb,

(4th Cir.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4533 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

2020) (cleaned up). That said, we “will not vacate [a] sentence simply because the [district]

court did not spell out what the context of its explanation made patently obvious.” United

States v. Montes-Pineda,

(4th Cir. 2006).

If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, we also consider its substantive

reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances. Lynn,

. The

sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the

purposes” of sentencing.

(a). We presume on appeal that a within-

Guidelines-range sentence is substantively reasonable, and the defendant bears the burden

to “rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when

measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” Montes–Pineda,

(internal

quotation marks omitted).

Upon review, we find Wilson’s sentence both procedurally and substantively

reasonable. Procedurally, we find it “patently obvious” that the court considered and

rejected Wilson’s mitigation argument that a Guidelines sentence could result in a de facto

life sentence. See Montes-Pineda,

. Therefore the sentence is procedurally

reasonable. Regarding substantive reasonableness, Wilson has not rebutted the

presumption that his within-Guidelines-range sentence is reasonable under the § 3553(a)

factors. 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