United States of America v. James Gray

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4431
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES GRAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00044-JPB-JPM-1)
Submitted: April 27, 2023 Decided: June 6, 2023
Before WILKINSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Frank C. Walker II, FRANK WALKER LAW, Clairton, Pennsylvania, for
Appellant. William Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Jennifer T. Conklin, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
James Gray appeals his 120-month sentence imposed following a jury conviction
for unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)
(2018). On appeal, Gray argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantively
unreasonable. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir.
2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Gray argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court
erred by failing to incrementally depart and explain its incremental departure from a
criminal history category of VI to an extrapolated category of IX. After reviewing the
record, we conclude that the district court deviated from the Guidelines range based on
Gray’s extensive criminal history, its impact on the community, the need to promote
respect for the law, and the need for deterrence. Thus, Gray’s sentence is not procedurally
unreasonable.
Next, Gray argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the extent
of the variance was not justified by the applicable § 3553(a) factors and was greater than
necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing. Having reviewed the record and accorded
due deference to the district court, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
in varying upward from a 70- to 87-month Guidelines range to a 120-month sentence.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We therefore 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 of 3 --