US v. Travis Dittrich

Filing 920100315

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4311 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS EDWARD DITTRICH, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?