US v. Derrick Taylor

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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