UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4507
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LENNELL DYCHES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (8:06-cr-00136)
Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: December 18, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States
Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Lennell Dyches pled
guilty to five counts of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d) (2000), and two counts of using and
carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2000). Dyches was
sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment for each bank robbery
offense, to run concurrently, and 84 months and 300 months’
imprisonment, respectively, for the firearms convictions, to run
consecutively. Finding no error, we affirm.
Dyches contends that his sentence is unreasonable because
the district court should have granted his motion for a variance in
the guidelines range based on his medical history of hypothyroidism
and depression. However, the district court appropriately
calculated the advisory guideline range and considered it in
conjunction with other relevant factors under the Guidelines and 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). See United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d
424, 432-33 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006).
Dyches’ medical history does not rise to the level required for an
exception to the general principle that “mental and emotional
conditions are not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a
sentence should be outside the applicable guideline range.”
U.S.S.G. § 5H1.3; see also United States v. Withers, 100 F.3d 1142,
1147-48 (4th Cir. 1996). Dyches’ sentence, which is within the
- 2 -
applicable guidelines range and the statutory maximum for each
offense, is therefore reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006); see
also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-65 (2007).
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 decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -