UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4444
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STACY ARTHANIEL THREATT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00417-FDW-1)
Submitted: January 13, 2009 Decided: January 15, 2009
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, Steven
Slawinski, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F.
Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy
E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stacy Arthaniel Threatt appeals from his 288-month
sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to robbery, using a
firearm during a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon. On appeal, he asserts that his sentence
was procedurally unreasonable because the court failed to
address the reasons for variance that Threatt presented. We
affirm.
When imposing sentence, a court must consider the
sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), and
explain the chosen sentence. See Gall v. United States, 128 S.
Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Failure to do so is procedural error. Id.
Here, the court explicitly stated that it reviewed all the
§ 3553 factors and chose to highlight the particularly pertinent
factors during its imposition of sentence. Regarding the
specific arguments raised by Threatt for a variance sentence
below the advisory Guidelines range, the court commended Threatt
for starting to turn his life around, discussed the extent of
Threatt’s past criminal conduct, noted Threatt’s success in
continued employment, and stated that Threatt had incredible
support from his community. In support of its decision to deny
the motion for a variance sentence, the court relied upon the
violent nature of the charged offense, Threatt’s career offender
status, the need to protect the public from Threatt, and the
2
drug treatment inherent in a longer sentence. Finally, the
court noted that, due to Threatt’s age, education, and
employment history, he possessed both the ability and the
opportunity to stay out of legal trouble, but he chose instead
to violate the law repeatedly.
We find that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in considering all the appropriate sentencing factors
and explaining its reasons for imposing the sentence chosen.
See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597 (standard of review). Accordingly,
we affirm Threatt’s sentence. 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