US v. Edward Washington

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00388-TDS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999001506].. [12-4514]

Appeal: 12-4514

Doc: 22

Filed: 12/13/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4514

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00388-TDS-1)

Submitted:

December 5, 2012

Decided:

December 13, 2012

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Stephen T.
Inman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4514

Doc: 22

Filed: 12/13/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Edward Washington appeals his sentence of ten months’
imprisonment after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement
to the theft of Government funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 641

(2006).

Washington

challenges

reasonableness of his sentence.

only

the

substantive

We affirm.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
using the abuse-of-discretion standard.

Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575
(4th Cir. 2010).

A sentence below the applicable Guidelines

range is presumptively reasonable.
F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).
only

by

a

showing

that

the

United States v. Susi, 674
Such presumption is rebutted

sentence

is

unreasonable

measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors.

when
United

States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006).
Washington has failed to overcome the presumption of
reasonableness.
applicable

Washington

Guidelines

explained

its

received

range.

selected

The

sentence,

a

sentence

district
citing

the

court

below

the

thoroughly

lengthy

period

during which Washington’s crime was ongoing and the need for
deterrence.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse

its discretion in selecting the sentence.
Accordingly,

we

affirm.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2

Appeal: 12-4514

Doc: 22

Filed: 12/13/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3