US v. Darl Vanmeter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cr-00012-JPB-JSK-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999075617].. [12-4696]

Appeal: 12-4696

Doc: 23

Filed: 03/29/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4696

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARL E. VANMETER, f/k/a Darl E. VanMeter,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:12-cr-00012-JPB-JSK-1)

Submitted:

February 15, 2013

Decided:

March 29, 2013

Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg,
West Virginia; L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
States Attorney, Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4696

Doc: 23

Filed: 03/29/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Darl E. Vanmeter pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea

agreement,

materials

used

to
in

aiding
the

and

abetting

manufacture

of

the

possession

of

methamphetamine,

in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6), (d)(2) (2006).

The district

court sentenced Vanmeter below his Guidelines range to ninetysix months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Vanmeter challenges the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence, contending that it
is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)

(2006),

particularly

rehabilitation.

Finding

no

reversible error, we affirm.
This
“whether

court

inside,

reviews

just

the

outside,

under

a

district

or

court’s

significantly

deferential

sentence,

outside

Guidelines

range[,]

standard.”

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).

the

abuse-of-discretion
When

reviewing a sentence for substantive reasonableness, this court
examines

“the

totality

of

the

circumstances,

including

extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.”

the

Id. at 51.

We must be satisfied that the district court “considered the
parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis” for its decision.
United

States

v.

Diosdado-Star,

630

F.3d

359,

364

(4th

Cir.

2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that Vanmeter’s ninety-six-month, belowGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.
2

The district

Appeal: 12-4696

Doc: 23

Filed: 03/29/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

court demonstrated that it considered Vanmeter’s arguments for a
thirty-six-month

sentence,

as

well

as

the

relevant

§ 3553(a)

factors, and had a reasoned basis for its sentencing decision.
We

conclude

that

the

district

court

did

not

abuse

its

discretion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3