US v. Terrell Battle

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00165-FL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999966122].. [16-4156]

Appeal: 16-4156

Doc: 32

Filed: 11/10/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4156

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TERRELL BATTLE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-cr-00165-FL-1)

Submitted:

October 20, 2016

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

KING,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

November 10, 2016

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
John
Stuart
Bruce,
United
States
Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4156

Doc: 32

Filed: 11/10/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Terrell

Battle

pled

guilty

to

two

counts

of

mailing

threatening communications to a federal official, in violation
of

18

U.S.C.

§

876(c)

(2012),

and

was

concurrent terms of 15 months in prison.

sentenced

to

two

Battle now appeals,

claiming that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.

We

affirm.
We

review

a

sentence

abuse-of-discretion standard.”
U.S.

38,

41

(2007).

“under

a

deferential

See Gall v. United States, 552

When

reviewing

for

substantive

reasonableness, we “examine[] the totality of the circumstances
to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in
concluding that the sentence . . . satisfied the standards set
forth

in

[18

U.S.C.

§]

3553(a).”

United

States

Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
sentence

is

within

the

correctly

calculated

v.

If the

Sentencing

Guidelines range, as it is here, we presume that the sentence is
substantively reasonable.

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d

295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

This presumption is rebutted only if

the

defendant

measured

shows

against

the

“that

the

sentence

§ 3553(a)

factors.”

is

unreasonable
United

when

States

v.

Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 176 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

2

Appeal: 16-4156

Doc: 32

Filed: 11/10/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

At Battle’s sentencing, the district court stated that it
had

considered

the

§ 3553(a)

factors,

variance,

which

appeal.

are

presentence
and

report,

Battle’s

identical

the

Guidelines,

arguments

to

those

for

a

the

downward

arguments

raised

on

The court exercised its “extremely broad discretion” to

weigh the mitigating factors identified by Battle against the
seriousness

of

the

offenses

and

Battle’s

criminal

history.

United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011).
Ultimately,

the

court

concluded

that

the

mitigating

factors

warranted a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range
rather than a downward variance.
We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable
and

that

Battle

reasonableness
Accordingly,
dispense

we
we

with

failed

to

accord

the

affirm
oral

the

argument

rebut

the

presumption

within-Guidelines

district
because

court’s
the

sentence.

judgment.

facts

of

and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3