US v. Curtis Martin, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4715 Doc: 47 Filed: 02/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4715 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CURTIS R. MARTIN, JR., Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?