US v. William Parros

Filing 920080904


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4760 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM PARROS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 07-4772 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. OWEN ROBINSON, a/k/a Heavy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (1:98-cr-00259-BEL-14; 1:98-cr-00259-BEL-5) Submitted: June 30, 2008 Decided: September 4, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald D. Glass, LAW OFFICES OF GERALD D. GLASS, Towson, Maryland; G. Godwin Oyewole, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Robert R. Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, William Parros and Owen Robinson appeal the district court's sentences imposed after we remanded for resentencing consistent with the rules announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See United States v. Robinson, 460 F.3d 550 (4th Cir. 2006). At resentencing, the court sentenced Parros to twenty years' imprisonment and Robinson to two concurrent terms of thirty years' imprisonment, in each case the statutory maximum sentence and the Sentencing Guidelines' sentence. On appeal, the Appellants claim the district court committed plain error because it did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's opinions in Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007), and Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007). They also argue the court treated the Guidelines as mandatory and used facts to increase their offense levels that were not found by a jury or admitted by the Appellants. We affirm. Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district courts for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597-98; United States v. Pauley, 511 When sentencing a defendant, a F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). district court must: (1) properly calculate the guideline range; (2) determine whether a sentence within that range serves the factors set out in 3553(a); (3) implement mandatory statutory limitations; and (4) explain its reasons for selecting a sentence. - 3 - Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. the initial benchmark." The Guidelines is "the starting point and Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 596. Next, the court should give the parties the opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate. The court is then instructed to consider the 3553(a) factors in light of the defendant's request to impose a specific sentence. sentence within the proper Id. In the Fourth Circuit, "[a] Guidelines range is Sentencing presumptively reasonable." United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence). This presumption can be rebutted only by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 3553(a) factors. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d The district court, however, must not 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006). presume that a sentence within the Guidelines is reasonable. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. The court must instead "make an individualized Id. assessment based on the facts presented." Upon review, this court must first determine whether the district court committed any significant procedural error, Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597, such as "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--including an explanation for any - 4 - deviation from the Guidelines range." sentence is procedurally sound, we Id. If this court finds the next "consider the must substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuseof-discretion standard. will, of course, take When conducting this review, the court into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. the appellate If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, may, but is not required to, apply a court presumption of reasonableness." Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. We find the district court appropriately followed the post-Booker sentencing procedure. In each case, it properly We determined the offense level and criminal history category. find no procedural error. substantively reasonable. We further find the sentences were The court was aware of its authority to go below the Guidelines based on the 3553(a) sentencing factors. Accordingly, we affirm the sentences. oral argument because the facts and legal We dispense with contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 5 -

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?