US v. Stacy Threatt
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STACY ARTHANIEL THREATT, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00417-FDW-1)
January 13, 2009
January 15, 2009
Before WILLIAMS, Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, Steven Slawinski, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Stacy Arthaniel Threatt appeals from his 288-month
sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to robbery, using a firearm during a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. was procedurally On appeal, he asserts that his sentence because the court failed to We
address the reasons for variance that Threatt presented. affirm. When imposing sentence, a court must consider
sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), and explain the chosen sentence. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Here, the court See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Id. the
Failure to do so is procedural error. stated that it reviewed all
§ 3553 factors and chose to highlight the particularly pertinent factors during its imposition of sentence. Regarding the
specific arguments raised by Threatt for a variance sentence below the advisory Guidelines range, the court commended Threatt for starting to turn his life around, discussed the extent of Threatt's continued past criminal and conduct, stated noted that Threatt's Threatt had success in
support from his community.
In support of its decision to deny
the motion for a variance sentence, the court relied upon the violent nature of the charged offense, Threatt's career offender status, the need to protect the public from Threatt, and the 2
inherent in that, due he to
sentence. age, the
the and the
opportunity to stay out of legal trouble, but he chose instead to violate the law repeatedly. We find that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in considering all the appropriate sentencing factors and explaining its reasons for imposing the sentence chosen. See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597 (standard of review). we affirm Threatt's sentence. Accordingly,
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
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?