US v. Antonio Owens
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ANTONIO OWENS, a/k/a Tonio, Defendant Appellant, and RANDY MARTIN; LUTHER BRYAN; ALISIA H. AKBAR; LACARIA BROWN; GEORGEAN MCCONNELL; GUSSIE D. NOLLKAMPER; FLORENCE NOLLKAMPER; CHRISTOPHER M. MORRIS; LAVACA COUNTY TEXAS; JOSEPH E. MCCONNELL; JOHN M. WARTHER; WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INCORPORATED; CHERYL L. AMAKER; DONNA C. ADKINS; CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Parties-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-26)
March 19, 2009
April 6, 2009
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and John Preston BAILEY, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey M. Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, P.S.C., Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Jane B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Antonio Owens was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and was sentenced to life in prison. challenging his conviction and sentence. Owens appealed,
We affirmed Owens'
conviction and rejected claims relating to Owens' sentence, but because he was sentenced and under remanded the then-mandatory resentencing Sentencing consistent See United
with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
States v. Davis, 270 F. App'x 236 (4th Cir. March 17, 2008) (unpublished). On remand, the district court imposed a 300-month
variant sentence on Owens and he timely appealed. that while the district him, the court correctly
Owens claims a variant was
insufficient because: (i) Owens had a disadvantaged childhood; (ii) his Guidelines range was based overwhelmingly on drug
weight, thereby making the range unreasonably high; and (iii) there are too many incarcerated people in the United States and a 300-month sentence "would be a waste for [Owens] and society at large." We imposed on affirm remand. the After district Booker, 3 court's we variant a sentence for
reasonableness, using an abuse of discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008) ("[A] sentence that deviates from the Guidelines is reviewed under the same deferential abuse-of-discretion standard as a sentence The court
imposed within the applicable guidelines range.").
must give due deference to the district court's decision that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors justify the sentence. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 162 (4th Cir. 2008). Even
if this court would have imposed a different sentence, this fact alone will not justify vacatur of the district court's sentence. Id. At Owens' resentencing, the district court heard
counsel's argument regarding the weight that should be afforded the § 3553(a) factors, afforded Owens an opportunity to
allocute, and thoroughly considered the § 3553(a) factors before imposing Owens' sentence. adequately explained its We conclude that the district court rationale for imposing the variant
sentence, that the sentence was selected pursuant to a reasoned process in accordance with law, and that the reasons relied upon by the district court are plausible and justify the sentence imposed. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d at 260-61; United States v. Pauley,
511 F.3d 468, 473-76 (4th Cir. 2007).
Because remand to be
judgment. legal before
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
contentions the court
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?