US v. Shamar Petty


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00167-CCE-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999965369]. [16-4225]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4225 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/09/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4225 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAMAR DAVELL PETTY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00167-CCE-1) Submitted: October 31, 2016 Decided: November 9, 2016 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Tiffany T. Jefferson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, JoAnna G. McFadden, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4225 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/09/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Shamar Davell Petty pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012). an On remand for resentencing, the district court imposed above-Sentencing imprisonment. Guidelines error, we of 92 months’ On appeal, Petty contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Because sentence Petty review does only We affirm. not the assert any substantive procedural sentencing reasonableness of the sentence, considering “the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)].” United States v. Gomez- Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 383 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). The “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard applies sentence, to any whether inside, just significantly outside the Guidelines range.” outside, or United States v. Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 100–01 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). When reviewing a sentence that falls outside the applicable Guidelines range, “we consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect extent of the divergence from the sentencing range.” States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 529 (4th Cir. 2014). 2 to the United Appeal: 16-4225 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/09/2016 Pg: 3 of 3 Petty argues that his sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing and that the district court failed to variance. give sufficient After reasons reviewing the for the district extent court’s of the thorough explanation of Petty’s sentence, we conclude that it did not abuse its discretion. The district court noted that Petty had a long criminal history, including several convictions involving firearms, and that he had received relatively lenient sentences in the past that had not deterred him from engaging in new criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B). The district court also considered the dangerousness of the conduct underlying the offense of conviction — specifically, that Petty carried and discarded a firearm in a residential neighborhood. See id. § 3553(a)(2)(A). The district court considered the Guidelines range and determined that a sentence significantly higher than that range was necessary to protect the public and to demonstrate to Petty that his conduct could not continue. See id. § 3553(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(4)(A). Accordingly, we criminal judgment. facts and materials legal before affirm the district court’s amended We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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?