UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4753
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARIEL TYREE PITTMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00308-D-1)
Submitted: June 9, 2009 Decided: July 2, 2009
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellant. George
E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Ethan A. Ontjes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A federal grand jury indicted Dariel Tyree Pittman for
being a felon in possession of a firearm on April 25, 2007
(Count 1), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006);
obstructing interstate commerce by robbery and aiding and
abetting (Count 2), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951 (2006);
carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and aiding
and abetting (Count 3), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 18
U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2009); and being a felon in
possession of a firearm and aiding and abetting on June 19, 2007
(Count 4), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(g)(1). Pittman
pleaded guilty to Counts 2 and 3 pursuant to a plea agreement in
exchange for the Government dismissing Counts 1 and 4. The
district court sentenced Pittman to 162 months of imprisonment
for Count 2 to be served consecutively with eighty-four months
of imprisonment for Count 3. Pittman now appeals his sentence,
arguing that the district court erred in upwardly departing from
the advisory guidelines range. Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also
United States v. Seay, 553 F.3d 732, 742 (4th Cir. 2009). In so
doing, the court first examines the sentence for “significant
procedural error,” including: “‘failing to calculate (or
2
improperly calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the
[g]uidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence . . . .’” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If there
are no significant procedural errors, the court “‘consider[s]
the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.’”
United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.) (quoting
Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008).
Pittman argues that the district court abused its
discretion in upwardly departing from the advisory guidelines
range to reflect the conduct in the dismissed charges, Counts 1
and 4. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.21 (2007).
In light of the facts of this case and the district court’s
thorough and meaningful articulation of its consideration of the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and the bases for departure,
we find the district court’s decision to depart, and the extent
of the departure, reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the
district court. 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