court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a
revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a
post-conviction sentence.” United States v. Thompson
, 595 F.3d
544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing McCullers, appropriately treating the
Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and
considering the applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the
relevant § 3553(a) factors. The court gave sound reasoning for
imposing the above Guidelines sentence and we conclude the
sentence was reasonable.
552 U.S. at 51 (court may not
presume a sentence outside the Guidelines range is
unreasonable). The court’s sentence may be presumed reasonable
by this court.
Moreover, McCullers faces a very heavy burden in
challenging his sentence. Even if he could show that his
sentence was unreasonable, he would still need to show that it
was plainly unreasonable. A sentence is “plainly unreasonable”
if it “run[s] afoul of clearly settled law.” Thompson, 595 F.3d
at 548. McCullers has not cited clearly settled law that was
violated by the district court’s sentence, and the record does
not reveal any such obvious errors.
McCullers filed a pro se supplemental brief
maintaining that his sentence was excessive and that he did not