United States v. Darryle Robertson ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 21-6710      Doc: 14         Filed: 08/03/2022    Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-6710
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DARRYLE EDWARD ROBERTSON, a/k/a Tiger,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:01-cr-00304-GLR-3)
    Submitted: July 22, 2022                                          Decided: August 3, 2022
    Before AGEE, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Darryle Edward Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Scott Tsuei, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-6710      Doc: 14         Filed: 08/03/2022     Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Darryle Edward Robertson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
    a sentence reduction pursuant to Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub L.
    No. 115-391, 
    132 Stat. 5194
    . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
    After finding that Robertson was eligible for a sentence reduction, the court considered the
    statutory range, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)
    sentencing factors, and Robertson’s post-sentencing conduct and rehabilitative efforts. See
    United States v. Collington, 
    995 F.3d 347
    , 358-61 (4th Cir. 2021). The court reasonably
    determined that the nature and circumstances of Robertson’s offense and other appropriate
    factors weighed against a sentence reduction. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
    order. United States v. Robertson, No. 1:01-cr-00304-GLR-3 (D. Md. Apr. 19, 2021). We
    deny the motions for appointment of counsel. 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.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-6710

Filed Date: 8/3/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/4/2022