US v. Curtis Martin, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00111-RDB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000026576] [15-4715]

Appeal: 15-4715

Doc: 47

Filed: 02/21/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4715

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CURTIS R. MARTIN, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:15-cr-00111-RDB-1)

Submitted:

December 30, 2016

Decided:

February 21, 2017

Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francis A. Pommett, III, NATHANSON & POMMETT, P.C., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Jefferson M. Gray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Tony K. Cheng, Student Law Clerk, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4715

Doc: 47

Filed: 02/21/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Curtis R. Martin, Jr., appeals his 96-month prison sentence
after pleading guilty to wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2(b), 1343 (2012).

The district court sentenced him above

his advisory Guidelines range of 63 to 78 months.

On appeal,

Martin questions whether his sentence is reasonable.

We affirm.

We review “the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) using an abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of
‘whether

[the

sentence

is]

inside,

just

significantly outside the Guidelines range.’”

outside,

or

United States v.

Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).

We “must first ensure that the

district court committed no significant procedural error, such
as failing to . . . adequately explain the chosen sentence —
including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines
range.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

reasonable,
“tak[ing]

we
into

consider
account

If the sentence is procedurally

its

the

substantive

totality

of

the

reasonableness,
circumstances,

including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.”
Id.

If the sentence is outside the Guidelines range, we “may

consider

the

extent

of

the

deviation,

but

must

give

due

deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a)
factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.”

2

Id.

Appeal: 15-4715

Doc: 47

Filed: 02/21/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

The district court “must make an individualized assessment
based

on

the
the

apply[ing]

facts

presented

relevant

when

§ 3553(a)

imposing

factors

a

to

sentence,

the

specific

circumstances of the case and the defendant, and must state in
open

court

sentence.”

the

particular

Lymas,

781

F.3d

quotation marks omitted).

reasons
at

supporting

113

its

(citation

and

chosen
internal

“In imposing a variance sentence, the

district court must consider the extent of the deviation and
ensure

that

the

justification

is

significantly

support the degree of the variance.”
quotation marks omitted).

compelling

to

Id. (citation and internal

“[A] district court’s explanation of

its sentence need not be lengthy, but the court must offer some
individualized

assessment

justifying

the

sentence

imposed

and

rejection of arguments for a higher or lower sentence based on
§ 3553.”

Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The “court’s stated rationale must be tailored to the particular
case

at

review.”
We

hand

and

adequate

to

permit

meaningful

appellate

Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
have

reviewed

the

record

and

conclude

that

sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.

Martin’s
First,

we conclude that the district court did not procedurally err in
its finding as to when his fraud scheme began or in comparing
his fraud crime to drug crimes.

Moreover, the district court

made an individualized assessment based on the facts presented,
3

Appeal: 15-4715

Doc: 47

Filed: 02/21/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

applied relevant § 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances
of

the

case

and

the

defendant,

and

adequately

particular reasons supporting its sentence.

explained

the

We therefore give

due deference to the district court’s reasoned and reasonable
decision that the § 3553(a) factors justified the sentence.
United

States

v.

Diosdado-Star,

630

F.3d

359,

357

See

(4th

Cir.

2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4