UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4991
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRYL MCCORMICK SOUTHERN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00006-WO-1)
Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 22, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Robert A.J. Lang,
Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darryl McCormick Southern appeals from his 188-month
sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal, Southern argues that
the decision to run his sentence consecutively to the state
sentence he was then serving was unreasonable and constituted an
abuse of discretion. We affirm.
Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(c)
(2007), the district court possessed the discretion to run the
imposed sentence concurrently, partially concurrently, or
consecutively to Southern’s prior undischarged term of
imprisonment. In choosing to run the sentence consecutively,
the court considered the undisputed advisory Guidelines range of
180-210 months in prison, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (2006) sentencing
factors, the fact that Southern’s undischarged state sentence
was the result of a “series” of probation violations, the fact
that the state and federal sentences were not related, and
Southern’s “extensive criminal history.” In fact, the court
noted that there was a significant argument to be made that an
appropriate sentence would require an upward departure from the
Guidelines, but the court declined to so depart, given
Southern’s cooperation, age, and the fact that his sentence
would be run consecutively. We find no abuse of discretion and
2
hold that the decision to run Southern’s sentence consecutively
to his undischarged state sentence was reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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