US v. Artkes Bennett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:15-cr-00013-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999941069].. [15-4753]

Appeal: 15-4753

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4753

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARTKES BENNETT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (4:15-cr-00013-D-1)

Submitted:

September 16, 2016

Decided:

October 4, 2016

Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Barbara D. Kocher, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4753

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Artkes Bennett appeals his 192-month sentence following his
guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent
to distribute a quantity of methamphetamine and a quantity of
heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846 (2012),
distribution of a quantity of methamphetamine, in violation of
21

U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(C)

(2012),

and

possession

with

intent to distribute a quantity of heroin, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).

On appeal, Bennett contends only

that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

We disagree.

We “consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Gall v. United

In doing so, we must “take into

account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent
of any variance from the [Sentencing] Guidelines range.”
We

presume

that

a

sentence

within

a

properly

Id.

calculated

Guidelines range is substantively reasonable.

United States v.

Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

A defendant can

rebut this presumption only “by showing that the sentence is
unreasonable

when

[(2012)] factors.”

measured

against

the

18

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)

Id.

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that Bennett has
not made the showing necessary to rebut the presumption that his
within-Guidelines-range

sentence
2

is

substantively

reasonable.

Appeal: 15-4753

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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