US v. Stacy Threatt

Filing 920090115

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4444

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)

Submitted:

January 13, 2009

Decided:

January 15, 2009

Before WILLIAMS, Judges.

Chief

Judge,

and

TRAXLER

and

KING,

Circuit

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

unreasonable

address the reasons for variance that Threatt presented. affirm. When imposing sentence, a court must consider

the

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

explicitly

§ 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

employment,

incredible

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

drug court

treatment noted

inherent in that, due he to

a

longer

sentence. age, the

Finally, education,

the and the

Threatt's both

employment

history,

possessed

ability

and

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

3