US v. Michael Lewis


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [998391323-2] Originating case number: 8:08-cr-00289-DKC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998489747] [09-4885]

Download PDF
Case: 09-4885 Document: 75 Date Filed: 12/22/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4885 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL K. LEWIS, Defendant Appellant, v. TERRY MASSEY; CLARETTA TAYLOR; THURMAN SPEIGHT; PHYLLIS HUBBARD; PAULA GORDON, Movants. SPEIGHT; JANET Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:08-cr-00289-DKC-1) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. * Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 46(d). * Case: 09-4885 Document: 75 Date Filed: 12/22/2010 Page: 2 Booth M. Ripke, NATHANS & BIDDLE, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Gina L. Simms, Jonathan Su, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Case: 09-4885 Document: 75 Date Filed: 12/22/2010 Page: 3 PER CURIAM: Michael K. Lewis appeals from his seventy-eight month sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to wire and bankruptcy fraud. was unreasonable On appeal, Lewis asserts that his sentence based upon the district court's failure to fully consider and apply the statutory sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006). Finding no error, we affirm. A sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion with the review encompassing both procedural soundness and substantive reasonableness. 51 (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, The district court is not required to list every 3553(a) factor in fashioning a sentence, see United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006), and the record reflects properly that the court both listened the to Lewis's arguments and and the considered proffered evidence 3553(a) factors. It is undisputed that Lewis's sentence was within the properly within calculated the Sentencing range Guidelines is range. A sentence Guidelines presumptively reasonable. Applying this presumption of reasonableness to Lewis's sentence, see United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008), we conclude that Lewis and that cannot his rebut sentence the is presumption reasonable. of The reasonableness district court provided detailed and appropriate reasoning for 3 Case: 09-4885 Document: 75 Date Filed: 12/22/2010 Page: 4 its chosen sentence, and Lewis's disagreement with the factors that the court chose to rely upon does not support a conclusion that the court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm Lewis's sentence and deny his petition for immediate release. 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 4

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?