Unpublished

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4698
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIE SHAWNDALE POLLARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00456-JAB-1)
Submitted:
February 19, 2015
Decided:
March 4, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, First

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Steven N.
Baker, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Shawndale Pollard pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)
(2012).
months
The
district
imprisonment,
court
a
sentenced
sentence
near
Guidelines range of 84 to 105 months.

that
his
than
middle
of
the
On appeal, Pollard argues
goals of sentencing enumerated in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2012).
We
Pollards
greater
ninety-two
the
that
was
the
to
satisfy
conclude
sentence
Pollard
sentence
is
necessary
to
substantively
reasonable,
and affirm.
We
review
deferential
sentence
for
abuse-of-discretion
reasonableness,
standard.
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
applying
Gall
v.
United
Where, as here, no claim of
procedural sentencing error is raised, we review the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence.
substantive
totality
of
reasonableness
the
of
circumstances
Id. at 51.
a
to
sentence,
see
In considering the
we
whether
examine[]
the
the
sentencing
court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it

chose satisfied the standards set forth in 3553(a).
United
States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).

The sentence imposed must be sufficient, but not greater than
necessary
to
satisfy
the
goals
3553(a).
of
sentencing.
18
U.S.C.
[D]istrict
determining
factors.
2011).
the
courts
have
weight
to
extremely
be
given
broad
each
discretion
of
the
when
3553(a)
United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir.
Therefore, we must defer to the trial court and can
reverse a sentence only if it is unreasonable.
United States
v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 160 (4th Cir. 2008) (emphasis omitted).
We
presume
on
appeal
that
substantively reasonable.
within-Guidelines
sentence
is
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d
295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
The
defendant bears the burden of rebutting this presumption by

showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors.
The
district
court
Id.
correctly
calculated
the
applicable
Guidelines range and, after hearing Pollards arguments for a

sentence
at
the
low
end
of
the
range,
Guidelines sentence of ninety-two months.
imposed
within-
Pollard argues that
the district court did not sufficiently consider his history of

military
service,
educational
achievements,
behavior at the time of his arrest.

unpersuasive.
sentence
of
or
non-violent
Pollards arguments are
The district court reasonably determined that a

ninety-two
months
was
appropriate
based
on
its
individualized assessment of the facts of Pollards case, the

arguments
factors.
made
That
at
the
the
sentencing
court
did
not
3
hearing,
and
articulate
the
3553(a)
every
3553(a)
factor or accord the weight that Pollard desired to the factors

and
arguments
unreasonable.
(2007).
is
not
basis
for
finding
the
sentence
See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358
Based on a totality of the circumstances, we conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
the chosen sentence, and that Pollards sentence is reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.
dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

February 19, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, First

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Guidelines range of 84 to 105 months.

On appeal, Pollard argues

goals of sentencing enumerated in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2012).

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).

Where, as here, no claim of

procedural sentencing error is raised, we review the substantive

court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it

States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).

United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir.

Therefore, we must defer to the trial court and can

reverse a sentence only if it is unreasonable.

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d

defendant bears the burden of rebutting this presumption by

Guidelines range and, after hearing Pollards arguments for a

Guidelines sentence of ninety-two months.

Pollard argues that

the district court did not sufficiently consider his history of

behavior at the time of his arrest.

Pollards arguments are

The district court reasonably determined that a

individualized assessment of the facts of Pollards case, the

factor or accord the weight that Pollard desired to the factors

See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358

Based on a totality of the circumstances, we conclude

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.