United States of America v. Lawrence Solin, a/k/a Martin Scott, a/k/a Martin Steele, a/k/a John Jordan, a/k/a…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4212
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LAWRENCE SOLIN, a/k/a Martin Scott, a/k/a
Martin Steele, a/k/a John Jordan, a/k/a Carl
Sinclair, a/k/a James Baldwin, a/k/a Wade
Carter,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00263-WLO)
Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: September 29, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner,
United States Attorney, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Solin appeals from his thirty-six month
sentence, imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to mail fraud. On
appeal, he contends that his sentence was unreasonable because the
district court did not properly consider certain factors, including
his age, his health, his lack of a criminal background, and the
needs of his son. After consideration of the briefs and record on
appeal, we affirm.
This court will affirm a sentence if it is both
reasonable and within the statutorily prescribed range. United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005); see also
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (stating a
sentence imposed within a properly calculated guideline range is
presumptively reasonable), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
Reasonableness review involves both procedural and substantive
components. United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 434 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). When conducting
reasonableness scrutiny, we note two considerations. First,
although a sentence may be procedurally unreasonable if the
district court provides an inadequate statement of reasons or fails
to make a necessary factual finding, a district court need not
“robotically tick” through every relevant factor. United States v.
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). Second, although a
sentence may be substantively unreasonable if the court relies on

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
an improper factor or rejects policies articulated by Congress or
the Sentencing Commission, see Moreland, 437 F.3d at 434,
“excessive weight” may not be given to any one factor. See United
States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 288-89 (4th Cir. 2006).
Applying the above principles, we cannot find that
Solin’s sentence was unreasonable. The district court considered
lengthy argument on the relevant factors, made certain factual
findings in Solin’s favor, and sentenced Solin in the mid-range of
his calculated guideline range. The court noted the seriousness
and extensive nature of Solin’s crime but also recommended that
Solin be placed in an institution close to his son and delayed his
reporting for several months so that Solin could make arrangements
for his son. Finding that the court properly considered the
relevant factors and imposed a reasonable sentence, we affirm. We
grant Solin’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief but
conclude that it does not provide a basis to change our
disposition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --