US v. Tito Coleman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cr-00005-JRS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999904216].. [16-4301]

Appeal: 16-4301

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4301

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TITO A. COLEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:16-cr-00005-JRS-1)

Submitted:

July 27, 2016

Decided:

August 4, 2016

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Nia
Ayanna Vidal, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney, Juan D. Mejia, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4301

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Tito

A.

Coleman

appeals

his

eight-month

sentence

after

pleading guilty to driving a vehicle with a suspended license,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13 (2012), assimilating Va. Code
§ 46.2-878.
We

Finding no error, we affirm.

review

substantive

Coleman’s

reasonableness

discretion standard.”
(2007).

sentence
“under

for
a

both

procedural

deferential

and

abuse-of-

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41

We must ensure that the sentencing court committed no

significant procedural error, such as failing to consider the
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors or not
adequately explaining the sentence.

Id. at 51.

If there is no

significant procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s
substantive

reasonableness

under

“the

totality

of

the

circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
[Sentencing] Guidelines range.”

Id.

Coleman first argues that the magistrate judge procedurally
erred by not sufficiently explaining the sentence.
sentencing
thoroughly

transcript
reviewed

the

reveals

that

§ 3553(a)

the

factors

However, the

magistrate
and

defense’s arguments before pronouncing sentence.

judge

considered

the

Coleman also

claims that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, but the
magistrate

judge

imposed

a

sentence

within

the

applicable

Guidelines range, and Coleman has not effectively rebutted the
2

Appeal: 16-4301

Doc: 21

presumption
sentence.

Filed: 08/04/2016

of

reasonableness

Pg: 3 of 3

we

afford

a

within-Guidelines

See United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th

Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3