US v. Byron Whitaker
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00237. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999640557]. [14-4419, 14-4435, 14-4641]
Appeal: 14-4419
Doc: 87
Filed: 08/14/2015
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4419
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BYRON DALE WHITAKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-4435
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY DEVONTE ROBERTSON, a/k/a G-Call,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-4641
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Appeal: 14-4419
Doc: 87
Filed: 08/14/2015
Pg: 2 of 5
ANDREW LEONARD LEAK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge.
(5:13-cr-00237-D-3; 5:13-cr-00237-D-4;
5:13-cr-00237-D-6)
Submitted:
July 30, 2015
Decided:
August 14, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ryan Willis, Drew Nelson, WILLIS JOHNSON & NELSON, PLLC,
Raleigh, North Carolina; Lynne Louise Reid, L.L. REID LAW,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Jennifer Haynes Rose, LAW OFFICE OF
JENNIFER HAYNES ROSE, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellants.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 14-4419
Doc: 87
Filed: 08/14/2015
Pg: 3 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Byron
Dale
Whitaker
and
Gregory
Devonte
Robertson
pled
guilty to carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to
a drug trafficking offense.
Andrew Leonard Leak pled guilty to
possessing cocaine with intent to distribute.
Applying several
upward departure provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines, the
district court sentenced Whitaker to 480 months’ imprisonment,
Robertson to 262 months’ imprisonment, and Leak to 132 months’
imprisonment.
The district court stated as to each individual
that whether or not its Guidelines calculations were erroneous,
it would have imposed the same sentences as upward variances.
On appeal, Whitaker argues that the district court improperly
considered his criminal history in determining his sentence, and
Robertson and Leak argue that certain upward departures were
improper.
Whitaker and Leak also argue that the district court
failed to adequately explain their sentences.
The Government
responds that the district court did not err and that even if it
did, that error is harmless because of the court’s statement
that it would have imposed the same sentences as variances in
each case had the Guidelines calculations been different.
We
affirm.
Reviewing
first
Whitaker
and
Leak’s
assertion
that
the
district court failed to adequately explain their sentences, we
conclude
that
this
argument
is
3
without
merit.
The
district
Appeal: 14-4419
court
Doc: 87
Filed: 08/14/2015
discussed
in
great
Pg: 4 of 5
detail
throughout
the
sentencing
hearings the conduct of Appellants that took their cases far
from the heartland of the applicable Guidelines.
discussed
each
Appellant’s
unique
background,
The court also
offense
and
relevant conduct, and postarrest actions, and how these facts
informed its application of the § 3553(a) factors.
The district
court clearly provided “an ‘individualized assessment’ based on
the
particular
facts
of
the
case
before
it
[and]
. . . a
rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate
to
permit
‘meaningful
appellate
review.’”
United
States
v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (footnote and citation
omitted)
(quoting
Gall
v.
United
States,
552
U.S.
38,
50
(2007)).
As to the Appellants’ assertions of error in the upward
departures,
“rather
than
review
the
merits
of
each
of
[Appellants’] challenges, we may proceed directly to an assumed
error harmlessness inquiry.”
United States v. Gomez-Jimenez,
750 F.3d 370, 382 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted),
cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 305 (2014).
“A Guidelines error is
considered harmless if . . . (1) the district court would have
reached the same result even if it had decided the [G]uidelines
issue the other way, and (2) the sentence would be reasonable
even
if
the
[G]uidelines
defendant’s favor.”
issue
had
been
decided
in
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
4
the
Appeal: 14-4419
Doc: 87
In
that
Filed: 08/14/2015
these
it
cases,
would
the
have
Pg: 5 of 5
district
imposed
court
identical
unambiguously
sentences
as
stated
upward
variances even if the various departures were applied in error.
Thus, the first prong of the harmlessness inquiry is satisfied.
This
Court’s
review
of
“[s]ubstantive
reasonableness
examines
the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing
court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it
chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).”
United
States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir 2010).
The district court correctly noted that these cases involved
heinous
acts
against
others
that
significantly
exceeded
mere
brandishing and discharging a firearm, or possession with intent
to distribute drugs.
appeal
that
his
Notably, none of the Appellants argue on
sentence
is
substantively
unreasonable.
We
conclude that the totality of the circumstances in each case
support a conclusion that the district court did not abuse its
discretion
in
its
sentencing
determinations,
Appellants’ sentences are substantively reasonable.
and
that
Thus, any
error in the district court’s upward departures is harmless.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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
5
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?