US v. Dariel Pittman

Filing 920090702

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4753 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARIEL TYREE PITTMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00308-D-1) Submitted: June 9, 2009 Decided: July 2, 2009 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A federal grand jury indicted Dariel Tyree Pittman for being a felon in possession of a firearm on April 25, 2007 (Count 1), in violation of 18 U.S.C. by 922(g)(1) and (2006); and obstructing interstate commerce robbery aiding abetting (Count 2), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 1951 (2006); carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and aiding and abetting (Count 3), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2 and 18 U.S.C.A. 924(c)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2009); and being a felon in possession of a firearm and aiding and abetting on June 19, 2007 (Count 4), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 922(g)(1). Pittman pleaded guilty to Counts 2 and 3 pursuant to a plea agreement in exchange for the Government dismissing Counts 1 and 4. The district court sentenced Pittman to 162 months of imprisonment for Count 2 to be served consecutively with eighty-four months of imprisonment for Count 3. Pittman now appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in upwardly departing from the advisory guidelines range. This applying an court of reviews Finding no error, we affirm. a sentence for reasonableness, Gall v. United abuse discretion standard. States, 552 U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States v. Seay, 553 F.3d 732, 742 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, the court first examines the sentence for "significant procedural error," including: 2 "`failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence . . . .'" Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If there are no significant procedural errors, the court "`consider[s] the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.'" United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008). Pittman argues that the district court abused its discretion in upwardly departing from the advisory guidelines range to reflect the conduct in the dismissed charges, Counts 1 and 4. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 5K2.21 (2007). In light of the facts of this case and the district court's thorough and meaningful articulation of its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006) factors and the bases for departure, we find the district court's decision to depart, and the extent of the departure, reasonable. Accordingly, district facts court. legal before We we affirm the sentence imposed by the the the the dispense with are oral argument because in aid and contentions the court adequately argument presented not materials and would decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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?