US v. Travis Dittrich

Filing 920100315

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4311

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS EDWARD DITTRICH, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:08-cr-00094-D-1)

Submitted:

February 19, 2010

Decided:

March 15, 2010

Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Travis Edward Dittrich pled guilty to fifteen counts of receiving child pornography, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252(a)(2) (West Supp. 2009) (Counts 1-15), and to one count of possessing child pornography, (Count 16). 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252(a)(4)(B) (West Supp. 2009)

(JA 6-41).

The district court imposed a 144-month

sentence for Counts 1-15 and 120-month concurrent sentence for Count 16. Both sentences advisory were imposed within Dittrich's range.

properly-calculated

Sentencing

Guidelines

Dittrich timely appeals his sentence, alleging that the district court procedurally erred because it rejected his assertion that his criminal history was overstated. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm. First, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's sentencing of Dittrich. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. Second, our review procedurally and

38, 49 (2007) (providing review standard). of Dittrich's sentence reveals it was

substantively 325, 328 (4th

reasonable, United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d Cir. to a 2009), and we apply the a presumption of

reasonableness

sentence

within

proper

Sentencing

Guidelines range. (4th Cir. 2007).

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 Finally, we conclude that the district court

did not err in rejecting Dittrich's argument that his criminal history category of III over-represented 2 his actual criminal

history,

see

generally

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

§

4A1.3(b) (2008) (permitting downward departure based on overrepresented criminal history), and that the district court

adequately explained on the record its decision not to depart on this basis. Carter, 564 F.3d at 328. we affirm Dittrich's the sentence. facts and We legal

Accordingly, dispense with oral

argument

because

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3