US v. Todd Brattain
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TODD ANDREW BRATTAIN, Defendant - Appellant,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber, District Judge. (2:07-cr-00093-1)
October 14, 2008
October 16, 2008
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael R. Cline, MICHAEL R. CLINE LAW OFFICES, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, R. Booth Goodwin, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Todd Andrew Brattain pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to three counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (2000), and one count of carrying a short-barreled rifle during a crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(a) (2000). Brattain was sentenced to seventy months in prison on
each of the robbery counts, all terms to run concurrently, and 120 months on the firearm count, to run consecutive to the
Brattain challenges only the reasonableness
of his sentence, arguing that the district court should only have sentenced him to 120 months and not the combined 190-month sentence. Finding no error, we affirm. This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district court for reasonableness, generally applying an abuse of
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597
(2007); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). When sentencing a defendant, a district court must: (1)
properly calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range; (2) treat the Guidelines as advisory; (3) consider the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000); and (4) explain its reasons for selecting a sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473-74. We presume
that a sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th
Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 2
correctness of within-Guidelines sentence). Because court's error. sentence, Brattain however, did his not claim object is to the district for plain
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 "In reviewing for plain error, our United States We conclude
U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993).
initial inquiry is whether an error occurred." v. Hastings, 134 F.3d 235, 239 (4th Cir. 1998).
that it did not. Here, the district court properly calculated and
considered Brattain's advisory Guidelines range, appropriately treating the Guidelines as advisory, and weighed the relevant § 3553(a) factors, range sentencing the Brattain to the See bottom United of his
v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005).
the district court was statutorily required to impose at least the 120-month mandatory minimum sentence on the firearm charge, and to run that sentence consecutive to the robbery sentence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) (2000); see also United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008) ("A statutorily required sentence . . . is per se reasonable.") (emphasis in original). Thus, we find that the district court
did not err in sentencing Brattain.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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.
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?