United States v. Dymon Black
581 F. App'x 263
4th Cir.
2014
Check Treatment
Docket

Charles Edward McClinton, Appellant Pro Se. v. Mark Edwin Grantham, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

263

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Edward McClinton appeals the district court‘s order denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised McClinton that failure to timely file specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge‘s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance.

; see also
. McClinton has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the district court.

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.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dymon Laquinn BLACK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-4926.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 31, 2014. Decided: Aug. 15, 2014.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Shailika K. Shah, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dymon Black appeals from his 114-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count each of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012) (“firearm conviction“). Black‘s sole argument on appeal is that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence on his firearm conviction because the district court “nearly doubl[ed]” his Guidelines range for that conviction. We affirm the district court‘s judgment.

Upon review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we conclude that the 108-month sentence on the firearm conviction, which represents a forty-eight-month upward variance from the advisory Guidelines range for that conviction, is not substantively unreasonable. When a district court has imposed a variant sentence, we consider the reasonableness of imposing a variance and the extent of the variance.

. A greater variance requires more substantial justification.
. “Generally, if the reasons justifying the variance are tied to [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [ (2012)] and are plausible, the sentence will be deemed reasonable.”
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We conclude that the district court adequately explained Black‘s sentence and appropriately tied its rationale for the variant sentence to the § 3553(a) factors it deemed relevant. Thus, we find that the 108-month sentence imposed on Black‘s firearm conviction is reasonable.

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.