Fourth Circuit Court Affirms Sentences
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsFourth Circuit Court Affirms Sentences
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4390
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
VENDAI LAPRIEST IRICK,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-4397
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
RODNEY JERROLD DEVIN BYRD,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-4407
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
DENZEL TIMOTHY RASHEEM SHIVERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr.,
Senior
District
Judge.
(1:13-cr-00339-NCT-1;
1:13-cr-00339-NCT-3; 1:13-cr-00339-NCT-2)
Submitted:
March 12, 2015
Decided:
April 13, 2015
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ferris R. Bond, BOND & NORMAN, Washington, D.C.; John J.
Cacheris, JC LAW CENTER, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellants. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Kyle D.
Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vendai
Irick,
Rodney
Byrd,
and
Denzel
Shivers
pleaded
guilty to interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of
18
U.S.C.
1951(a)
(2012).
The
district
court
sentenced
Shivers and Irick to 136 months imprisonment and three years
supervised release, and Byrd to 175 months imprisonment and
three years supervised release.
On appeal, Irick contends the
district court plainly erred by failing to reduce Iricks total
offense level for playing a mitigating role in the offense.
of
the
appellants
contend
unreasonable sentences.
that
the
district
court
All
imposed
We affirm.
Because Irick did not allege in the district court that he
was
entitled
to
an
offense
level
reduction
for
playing
mitigating role in the offense, we review this issue for plain
error.
United States v. Slade, 631 F.3d 185, 189-90 (4th Cir.
2011).
To demonstrate plain error, Irick must show that an
error
(1)
occurred,
substantial rights.
(2)
was
plain,
and
(3)
affected
his
See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
732 (1993).
The Sentencing Guidelines provide graduated offense level
reductions when a defendant plays a mitigating role in the
charged offense.
(2013).
See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 3B1.2
If the defendant was a minimal participant, the court
should reduce the total offense level by four.
3
USSG 3B1.2(a).
If the defendant was a minor participant, the court should
reduce the total offense level by two.
USSG 3B1.2(b).
If the
defendant fall[s] between the two gradations, the court should
reduce the total offense level by three.
This
reduction
substantially
applies
less
3B1.2 n.3(A).
culpable
USSG 3B1.2(c).
to
any
than
his
defendant
who
codefendants.
is
USSG
We have previously held that a district court
did not clearly err in refusing to apply the reduction to the
driver in a drug-running scheme, where the driver was aware of
the scheme and participated in prior deliveries, and the amount
involved was hardly insubstantial.
United States v. McCrary,
887 F.2d 485, 488 (4th Cir. 1989).
After reviewing the record, we likewise conclude that the
district court did not plainly err in failing to award Irick the
mitigating role reduction.
Irick scouted the jewelry store that
appellants later robbed and admitted to committing two other
robberies with his codefendants.
robbing
cash
and
goods
Furthermore, Irick assisted in
worth
over
$400,000hardly
[an]
insubstantial amount.
Appellants next argue that the district court abused its
discretion
by
imposing
unreasonable
sentences.
See
Gall
v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (providing standard of
review).
ensure
In reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, we first
that
the
district
court
4
committed
no
significant
procedural error, including insufficient consideration of the
18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2012) factors or inadequate explanation of
the sentence imposed.
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575
(4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In
its
explanation,
the
district
court
need
not
robotically tick through every 3553(a) factor on the record,
particularly when its sentence is within the properly calculated
Sentencing Guidelines range.
339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
must
make
an
presented.
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d
At the same time, the district court
individualized
Gall,
552
assessment
U.S.
at
50.
based
on
the
facts
This
individualized
assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, but it must provide
a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate
to
permit
meaningful
appellate
review.
United
States
v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
We
conclude
that
procedural error.
the
district
court
committed
no
such
The court balanced the seriousness of the
offense and the need to protect the public and deter others from
such conduct, against appellants youth, immaturity, and drug
use.
While the district court often grouped its references to
appellants,
individual
it
also
conduct.
clearly
differentiated
Moreover,
this
between
grouping
was
their
hardly
inappropriate, given that appellants presented many of the same
considerations.
We must also examine the substantive reasonableness of the
sentences,
considering
the
totality
of
the
circumstances.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
The sentence imposed must be sufficient,
but
necessary,
not
greater
sentencing.
18
than
U.S.C.
to
satisfy
3553(a).
the
properly
purposes
of
calculated,
within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable on appeal, and
an
appellant
bears
the
burden
to
rebut
the
presumption
by
demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the 3553(a) factors.
445
F.3d
375,
379
(4th
Cir.
United States v. Montes-Pineda,
2006)
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
Appellants
Guidelines
effectively
sentences
ranges.
balanced
fell
As
explained
the
serious,
within
above,
their
the
premeditated,
respective
district
and
court
dangerous
nature of the offense against appellants youth, immaturity, and
drug use.
Contrary to Iricks arguments on appeal, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying him a variance.
Indeed,
he
as
played
just
as
significant
role
in
the
crime
his
codefendants.
We similarly find nothing to support appellants assertion
that the district court improperly enhanced their sentences due
6
to unproven, uncharged conduct.
such
conduct
in
analyzing
The court properly considered
appellants
history
and
characteristics and fashioning a within-Guidelines sentence.
Finally,
consider
the
the
district
negative
courts
collateral
failure
consequences
to
explicitly
that
appellants
will suffer as a result of their imprisonment does not warrant
reversal.
Accordingly,
we
conclude
that
the
district
court
imposed reasonable sentences.
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
