US v. Paul Dewayne Dorsey

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:09-cr-00468-PJM-13 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999903436].. [16-4017]

Appeal: 16-4017

Doc: 37

Filed: 08/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAUL DEWAYNE DORSEY, a/k/a Little Dorsey,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:09-cr-00468-PJM-13)

Submitted:

July 28, 2016

Decided:

August 3, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jenifer Wicks, LAW OFFICES OF JENIFER WICKS, Takoma Park,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Joseph R. Baldwin, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4017

Doc: 37

Filed: 08/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Paul Dewayne Dorsey pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack
cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and being a felon in possession
of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012).

He was originally

sentenced to 137 months’ imprisonment — the top of the advisory
Guidelines range.

This court later vacated Dorsey’s sentence

and remanded to the district court for re-sentencing after one
of his prior state court convictions was vacated.

The district

court re-sentenced Dorsey to 105 months’ imprisonment — the top
of the agreed-upon advisory Guidelines range — followed by four
years of supervised release (the statutory mandatory minimum).
Dorsey

appeals,

unreasonable
take

into

claiming

because
account

the
his

that

his

district

sentence
court

post-conviction

is

failed

substantively
to

adequately

rehabilitation.

We

affirm.
We review Dorsey’s sentence for procedural and substantive
reasonableness,
standard.”

“under

a

deferential

abuse-of-discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).

We

must ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines
range.

Id. at 51.

If there is no significant procedural error,

we then consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness under
“the totality of the circumstances.”
2

Id.

We presume that a

Appeal: 16-4017

Doc: 37

sentence

Filed: 08/03/2016

within

reasonable.

a

properly

Pg: 3 of 3

calculated

Guidelines

range

is

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th

Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).

A defendant can

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

when

measured

against

the

18

U.S.C.

court

did

§ 3553(a)

Id.

Dorsey

concedes

that

the

district

not

err

in

calculating his advisory Guidelines, but he contends that his
sentence
record,

is
we

substantively
conclude

unreasonable.

that

Dorsey

has

Having
not

made

reviewed
the

the

showing

necessary to rebut the presumption that his within-Guidelines
sentence is reasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3