US v. Joel Arti

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-cr-00342-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999296223].. [13-4338]

Appeal: 13-4338

Doc: 32

Filed: 02/12/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4338

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOEL DEVON ARTIS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00342-D-1)

Submitted:

January 27, 2014

Decided:

February 12, 2014

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

C. Scott Holmes, BROCK, PAYNE & MEECE, P.A., Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4338

Doc: 32

Filed: 02/12/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Joel Devon Artis appeals the thirty-six-month sentence
imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to
one count of possession with intent to distribute a quantity of
marijuana,

cocaine,

heroin,

Benzylpiperazine

Trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine
Methylenediozpyrovalerone
§ 841(a)(1) (2012).

(BZP),

(MDPPP),

(MDPV),

in

violation

and
of

21

U.S.C.

On appeal, Artis argues that the district

court erred in upwardly departing pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 4A1.3 (2012).

Specifically, Artis

argues that the court engaged in impermissible double counting
when the conduct that served as the basis for the departure was
also used to impose a three-level enhancement pursuant to USSG
§ 3C1.3

because

he

committed

the

pending sentencing in another case.
This
substantive
standard.
same

court

reviews

reasonableness

a

offense

while

on

release

We affirm.
sentence

under

an

for

abuse

procedural
of

discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

standard

applies

whether

the

sentence

is

“inside,

outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range.”
States

v.

Rivera-Santana,

668

F.3d

95,

100-01

and

The
just

United

(4th

Cir.)

(internal citation and quotation marks omitted), cert. denied,
133 S. Ct. 274 (2012).

In evaluating procedural reasonableness,

this

whether

court

considers

the
2

district

court

properly

Appeal: 13-4338

Doc: 32

Filed: 02/12/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, gave the
parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence,
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, selected a
sentence supported by the record, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence.
In
range,

the

sentencing

Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51.

reviewing
appellate
court’s

any

sentence

court

decision

must

outside

give

because

due

it

the

Guidelines

deference

has

to

“flexibility

the
in

fashioning a sentence outside of the Guidelines range,” and need
only “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that it
has 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).
error,

the

court

If the sentence is free of procedural

reviews

it

for

substantive

reasonableness,

taking into account the totality of the circumstances.

Gall,

552 U.S. at 51.
Section
“reliable

4A1.3

information

authorizes

indicates

that

an

upward

the

departure

defendant’s

when

criminal

history category substantially under-represents the seriousness
of the defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that the
defendant will commit other crimes.”

USSG § 4A1.3(a)(1), p.s.

The types of information that may support an upward departure
include “[w]hether the defendant was pending trial or sentencing

3

Appeal: 13-4338

Doc: 32

Filed: 02/12/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

on another charge at the time of the instant offense.”

USSG

§ 4A1.3(a)(2)(D).
“Double

counting

occurs

when

a

provision

of

the

Guidelines is applied to increase punishment on the basis of a
consideration

that

has

been

accounted

for

by

application

of

another Guideline provision or by application of a statute.”
United States v. Reevey, 364 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2004).
“[T]here is a presumption that double counting is proper where
not expressly prohibited by the guidelines.”
Hampton,

628

F.3d

654,

664

(4th

Cir.

United States v.

2010).

Section

4A1.3

contains no language addressing, much less prohibiting, double
counting.
(4th

See United States v. Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 102

Cir.

2012)

impermissibly
because

that

counting).
in

(rejecting

triple

counted

section

does

argument
in

that

departing

not

district

under

prohibit

USSG

double

or

court
§ 4A1.3
triple

We conclude that the district court did not engage

impermissible

double

counting

and

Artis’s

arguments

are

without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm Artis’s sentence.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4