US v. Joshua Starling

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00335-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998673762].. [11-4146]

Appeal: 11-4146

Document: 20

Date Filed: 09/09/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4146

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA DAVID STARLING,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00335-WO-1)

Submitted:

August 25, 2011

Decided:

September 9, 2011

Before KEENAN and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ames C. Chamberlin, LAW OFFICES OF AMES C. CHAMBERLIN,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United
States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4146

Document: 20

Date Filed: 09/09/2011

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Joshua

David

Starling

pled

guilty,

pursuant

to

a

written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and
oxycodone, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and possession of a firearm
in

furtherance

of

a

§ 924(c)(1)(A) (2006).

drug

trafficking

offense,

18

U.S.C.

The district court sentenced Starling to

37 months’ imprisonment on the § 846 offense — the bottom of the
Sentencing
sentence

Guidelines

on

the

range

§ 924(c)

—

plus

offense.

a

consecutive

Starling

noted

60-month
a

timely

appeal.
Starling’s sole argument on appeal is that his total
97-month sentence is unreasonable compared to his co-defendant’s
57-month sentence because they were guilty of the same conduct.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard.
38, 51 (2007).

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

In determining the reasonableness of a sentence,

we first consider whether the district court properly calculated
the

defendant’s

U.S.C.

§

presented

advisory

3553(a)
by

the

selected sentence.
the

sentencing

Guidelines

(2006)
parties,

factors,
and

range,

analyzed

sufficiently

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

court

must

considered

consider

is

any

the

18

arguments

explained

the

One of the factors
“the

need

to

avoid

unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar
records who have been found guilty of similar conduct . . . .”
2

Appeal: 11-4146

Document: 20

Date Filed: 09/09/2011

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).

Page: 3 of 4

However, “the kind of disparity with

which § 3553(a) is concerned is an unjustified difference across
judges (or districts) rather than among defendants to a single
case.”

United States v. Pyles, 482 F.3d 282, 290 (4th Cir.

2007) (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also United
States v. Clark, 434 F.3d 684, 687 (4th Cir. 2006) (sole concern
of

§ 3553(a)

defendants).
§ 924(c)

is
In

count,

sentencing
any

while

event,
his

disparities

Starling

was

co-defendant

among

federal

convicted

was

not.

on

the

Moreover,

Starling’s criminal history placed him in Category V, whereas
his co-defendant’s placed her in

Category I.

We find that Starling’s sentence is both procedurally
and

substantively

calculated

reasonable.

Starling’s

Guidelines,

considered

The

sentencing
the

district

range

relevant

court

properly

the

advisory

under

§

3553(a)

factors,

and

imposed a sentence at the bottom of the applicable sentencing
range.

Starling

reasonableness

cannot

accorded

overcome

his

the

within-Guidelines

presumption

of

sentence.

See

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007).
Accordingly,

we

affirm.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

3

Appeal: 11-4146

Document: 20

Date Filed: 09/09/2011

Page: 4 of 4

presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4