US v. Milton Byard

Filing 920090217


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4423 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MILTON BYARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00165-5) Submitted: January 23, 2009 Decided: February 17, 2009 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy N. Giatras, THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Miller Bushong, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Milton Byard pled guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2006). The district court properly calculated Byard's advisory Guidelines range to be forty-six to fifty-seven months of imprisonment, and sentenced him to serve forty-six months. Byard appeals, alleging the his sentence court did is not procedurally sufficiently We unreasonable because district consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors. * have reviewed the record and affirm. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review a sentence to determine whether it is unreasonable, Gall v. applying a "deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591, 594 (2007). A district First, court must engage in a multi-step process at sentencing. the sentencing court must calculate the appropriate Guidelines range by making any necessary factual findings. Then the court should afford the parties "an Id. at 596. opportunity Id. to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate." Next, it should consider the resulting advisory sentencing range in conjunction with the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), and Byard does not challenge the calculation of his advisory Guidelines range. * 2 determine whether the 3553(a) factors support the sentence requested by either party. Id. Consideration of the factors in 3553(a) does not require the sentencing court to "robotically tick through" every subsection of 3553(a). Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. United States v. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To determine whether a sentencing court abused its discretion, we undertake a two-part analysis. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). United States v. First, we examine the sentence for "significant procedural errors," and second, we evaluate the substance of the sentence. Id. Significant procedural errors include "`failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence . . . .'" Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). Id. (quoting "Substantive reasonableness review entails taking into account the `totality of the circumstances, including range.'" the extent of any variance from the Guidelines Id. (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). An appellate court may presume a sentence within the Guidelines range to be reasonable. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, __, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2459, 2462 (2007). 3 Here, the district court properly calculated Byard's Guidelines range and adequately noted its consideration of the 3553(a) sentencing factors. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to sentence Byard at the bottom of the Guidelines range. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials would decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?