United States of America v. Aaron Michael Crick

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4003
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AARON MICHAEL CRICK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:20-cr-00091-FDW-DCK-1)
Submitted: September 8, 2022 Decided: September 12, 2022
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: J. Edward Yeager, Jr., Cornelius, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J.
King, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Michael Crick pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to two counts of
transporting and shipping child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1),
(b)(1), and possessing an image of child pornography involving a prepubescent minor
younger than 12 years old, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2). The district
court sentenced Crick to 151 months’ imprisonment, at the low end of the advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Crick 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, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see United States v. Blue, 877
F.3d 513, 517 (4th Cir. 2017). This review requires consideration of both the procedural
and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Blue, 877 F.3d at 517. We have confirmed
that Crick’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. See United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d
213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019).
In assessing substantive reasonableness, we consider “the totality of the
circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. A sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary,” to satisfy the statutory purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). “Any
sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
[substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United
States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Crick argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the child
pornography enhancements have not kept pace with technology, the majority of child
pornography offenders receive a below-Guidelines-range sentence, and he engaged in
nonproduction offenses. However, the district court considered these arguments and
determined that they justified a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range rather than
a downward variance. The court recognized its authority to impose a below-Guidelines-
range sentence but declined to do so, having carefully balanced Crick’s personal history
and characteristics with the seriousness of the offenses and the need for deterrence. Our
review convinces us that the district court carefully evaluated the § 3553(a) factors and
gave due consideration to Crick’s mitigating arguments when imposing a sentence at the
low end of the Guidelines range. Thus, Crick’s sentence is substantively reasonable, and
Crick has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded 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 of 3 --