UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4532
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CURTIS EUGENE ELLIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00395-BR-1)
Submitted: March 30, 2015 Decided: April 14, 2015
Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Robert E. Waters,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Eugene Ellis appeals the sentence imposed by the
district court following his guilty plea to aiding and abetting
two Hobbs Act robberies and an attempted Hobbs Act robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a) (2012), and to aiding and
abetting the using, carrying, possessing, and brandishing of a
firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A) (2012). The district court
sentenced Ellis to concurrent 144-month terms of imprisonment on
the robbery counts and a consecutive 84 months’ imprisonment on
the firearm count. The district court ordered that the federal
sentence be served consecutively to Ellis’s previously imposed
state sentences. Ellis argues that the district court
inadequately explained its decision to make his federal robbery
sentence run consecutively to his state sentences. We affirm.
In explaining a sentence, the district court is not
required to “robotically tick through . . . every subsection [of
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)].” United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d
388, 395 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
However, the court “must make an individualized assessment based
on the facts presented” that is “tailored to the particular case
at hand and adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.”
United States v. Lymas, __ F.3d __, __, 2015 WL 1219553, at *3
(4th Cir. Mar. 18, 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
A district court has discretion to make a defendant’s
federal sentence run consecutively to or concurrently with an
undischarged sentence previously imposed. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)
(2012); Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463, 1468 (2012).
The Guidelines also provide factors a court should consider in
exercising its discretion to impose a consecutive or concurrent
sentence:
(i) the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3584[(b)]
(referencing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a));
(ii) the type (e.g., determinate,
indeterminate/parolable) and length of the prior
undischarged sentence;
(iii) the time served on the undischarged sentence and
the time likely to be served before release;
(iv) the fact that the prior undischarged sentence
may have been imposed in state court rather than
federal court . . . ; and
(v) any other circumstance relevant to the
determination of an appropriate sentence for the
instant offense.
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3 cmt. n.3(A) (2013).
In this case, although the district court did not expressly
discuss its reasons for making the federal robbery sentence run
consecutively to Ellis’s prior state sentence, the district
court indicated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors,
the fact that Ellis was currently subject to a state sentence
with a release date of May 4, 2016, and the nature and
background of these offenses. We note that the district court
3
did not expressly consider the type of the prior sentence, but
its consideration of Ellis’s expected release date adequately
addressed this issue. Thus, we are satisfied that the district
court adequately explained its reasons for the sentence as a
whole.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4