United States v. Julius Nesbitt , 584 F. App'x 167 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4997
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JULIUS NESBITT, a/k/a Butch,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:08-cr-01153-DCN-1)
Submitted: September 17, 2014 Decided: October 16, 2014
Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Peter T. Phillips,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Julius Nesbitt of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute and to distribute oxycodone,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012) (“Count One”); two counts
of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of
oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C)
(2012) (“Count Two” and “Count Three”); one count of possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012) (“Count Five”); and one count of
causing the Coast Guard to attempt to save a life and property
when no help was needed, in violation of 14 U.S.C. § 88(c)
(2012) (“Count Six”).
The district court sentenced Nesbitt to 151 months’
imprisonment on Counts One, Two, and Three, and concurrent
sentences of 120 months’ imprisonment on Count Five and
seventy-two months’ imprisonment on Count Six, for a total
sentence of 151 months’ imprisonment. See United States v.
Nesbitt, 464 F. App’x 89, 90 (4th Cir. 2012). On appeal, this
court vacated the criminal judgment in part and remanded for
resentencing, holding that the district court failed “to provide
an adequate explanation for its chosen sentence”. Id. at 91-92.
At resentencing, the district court sentenced Nesbitt to an
identical sentence.
2
This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district
court under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 45 (2007); United States v. Lynn,
592 F.3d 572, 578-79 (4th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion
standard of review applicable when defendant properly preserves
a claim of sentencing error in district court “[b]y drawing
arguments from [18 U.S.C.] § 3553 [(2012)] for a sentence
different than the one ultimately imposed”). The appellate
court must begin by reviewing the sentence for significant
procedural error, including failing to “adequately explain the
chosen sentence[.]” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
When, as here, the district court imposes a
within-Guidelines sentence, the district court may “provide a
less extensive, while still individualized, explanation.”
United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009).
That explanation, however, must be sufficient to allow for
“meaningful appellate review” such that the appellate court need
“not guess at the district court’s rationale[.]” United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 329-30 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
On appeal, Nesbitt challenges only the adequacy of the
district court’s explanation of its sentence. After reviewing
the record, we conclude the district court adequately explained
the chosen sentence.
3
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decision making process.
AFFIRMED
4