US v. Derrick Taylor


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00177-H-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999966925]. [16-4100]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4100 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/14/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4100 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DERRICK LAMONT TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cr-00177-H-1) Submitted: October 31, 2016 Decided: November 14, 2016 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rudolph A. Ashton, III, DUNN PITTMAN SKINNER & CUSHMAN, PLLC, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-4100 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/14/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Derrick Lamont Taylor pleaded guilty to failing to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (2012). The Guidelines 21–month sentence. district court imposed a within- Taylor appeals, claiming that the district court’s failure to acknowledge and apply its discretion to order a sentence concurrent to his state sentence and to set a start date renders his sentence unreasonable. Finding no reasonableness, applying “a error, we affirm. We review deferential a sentence for abuse-of-discretion States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). standard.” Gall v. United This review considers both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. In assessing procedural reasonableness, we consider factors such as whether the district court correctly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and sufficiently explained the sentence imposed. Id. If no procedural errors exist, we consider the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” sentences Id. within The court presumes the reasonableness of the Guidelines range. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). can only be rebutted by showing 2 that United States v. This “presumption the sentence is Appeal: 16-4100 Doc: 33 unreasonable factors.” Filed: 11/14/2016 when measured Pg: 3 of 3 against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Id. Assessing procedural reasonableness first, we reject both of Taylor’s failing arguments. to The acknowledge sentences. district its court did to order discretion not err by concurrent See United States v. Hayes, 535 F.3d 907, 909-10 (8th Cir. 2008). Moreover, the record reveals that the district court understood its authority to impose concurrent sentences. Nor did the judgment. court See err Hayes, by 535 omitting F.3d at a start 909-10; date United from the States v. Wells, 473 F.3d 640, 645, 650 (6th Cir. 2007). To the extent Taylor’s arguments also touch on the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, we find that, under the totality of the circumstances, Taylor has not overcome the presumption sentence. of reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines Accordingly, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion when imposing Taylor’s sentence. We dispense therefore with contentions are affirm oral the argument adequately district court’s because presented in the the judgment. 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?