US v. Orlando Dewitt
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:16-cr-00008-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [17-4072]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
ORLANDO DEWITT, a/k/a Orlando Williamson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (7:16-cr-00008-D-1)
Submitted: September 18, 2017
Decided: September 27, 2017
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Acting Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United
States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine
L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Orlando Dewitt appeals the 41-month sentence the district court imposed after he
pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)
(2012). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Because Dewitt does not argue
that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable, we review it for substantive
reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “Any
sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). “Such a
presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors.” Id.
Dewitt contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, arguing that a
lower sentence was warranted because he had a difficult upbringing, committed his initial
sex offense as a minor, and has gone an extensive amount of time without committing
another sex offense.
We conclude that these contentions fail to overcome the
presumption of reasonableness accorded Dewitt’s within-Guidelines sentence. Although
Dewitt was not accused of another sex offense, the district court was justifiably
concerned about his repeated failure to register as a sex offender. And the district court
recognized Dewitt’s difficult upbringing, but emphasized that this did not excuse his
failure to register as a sex offender. The district court’s explanation indicates that it
Pg: 3 of 3
considered Dewitt’s arguments, but found them unpersuasive when considered against
other § 3553 factors. We discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s conclusion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?