US v. Arnold Threet
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00020-CCB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999693585].. [15-4118]
Appeal: 15-4118
Doc: 35
Filed: 11/05/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4118
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ARNOLD RUSSELL THREET,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:14-cr-00020-CCB-1)
Submitted:
September 22, 2015
Decided:
November 5, 2015
Before KING, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew R. Szekely, LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW R. SZEKELY, LLC,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Bonnie S. Greenberg, Assistant United States
Attorney, Michael
Elliker,
Student
Law
Clerk,
Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4118
Doc: 35
Filed: 11/05/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Arnold Threet pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to committing bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§
2113
(2012).
The
district
court
sentenced
Threet
to
120
months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
On appeal, Threet contends that the district court abused its
discretion
by
varying
Guidelines range.
upward
from
his
applicable
Sentencing
We affirm.
We review a sentence’s substantive reasonableness under a
“deferential
abuse-of-discretion
standard.”
United
Washington, 743 F.3d 938, 943-44 (4th Cir. 2014).
States
v.
We “must
defer to the district court and affirm a reasonable sentence,
even if we would have imposed something different.”
943-44.
When
faced
with
a
variant
sentence,
we
Id. at
“consider
whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect
to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to
the extent of the divergence from the sentencing range.”
Id. at
944 (internal quotation marks omitted).
A
variant
sentence
unreasonableness.”
(2007).
“does
“carries
no
presumption
of
Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708, 713
Even a significant variance from the Guidelines range
not
alone
unreasonable.”
render
[a
variant
sentence]
presumptively
United States v. Hargrove, 701 F.3d 156, 163
(4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation mark omitted).
2
While the
Appeal: 15-4118
Doc: 35
Filed: 11/05/2015
Pg: 3 of 3
extent of the variance is relevant, we must “give due deference
to the district court’s decision that the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)
factors,
on
the
whole,
justify
the
extent
of
the
variance.”
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion either in varying upward or
in the extent of its variance from Threet’s Guidelines range.
Threet committed a serious offense, has an extensive criminal
history that was not accounted for in his Guidelines range, and
has demonstrated a propensity to commit robbery when faced with
recurring bouts of substance abuse.
The district court properly
cited the need to protect the public due to individual factors
not sufficiently accounted for by the Guidelines.
We thus find
no reversible error in the district court’s sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
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?