US v. Shamar Petty

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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