Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 09-4283
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern.
Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:08-cr-00175-FL-1)
Submitted:
NIEMEYER,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
June 4, 2010
and
HAMILTON,
PER CURIAM:
Desmond
Lamont
Garrett
pled
guilty
to
armed
bank
4A1.3,
p.s.
contending
that
sentence.
He
(2008).
the
also
Garrett
departure
seeks
to
appeals
resulted
challenge
in
the
an
his
sentence,
unreasonable
district
courts
during
the
robbery
asserts
that
and
for
use
of
minor
in
claims
should
be
the
The
dismissed
right
to
raise
on
appeal
any
issues
relating
to
the
We affirm in
seriously
under-represented
the
seriousness
of
Garretts
including
multiple
2
infractions
for
each
of
the
following:
injury;
assault
without
serious
injury;
interfering
with
test;
destruction
of
possession of intoxicants.
while
he
was
on
property;
setting
fires;
and
supervised
release,
Garrett
committed
the
adopted
the
sentencing,
the
district
court
during
accomplice.
placed
him
the
robbery
Garrett
had
in
criminal
and
six
for
use
criminal
history
history
category
of
III.
minor
points,
The
as
an
which
advisory
treatment.
The
court
determined
3
that
departure
to
The court
(2007).
requires
This
review
consideration
of
both
first
determine
whether
the
district
court
the
Id.
properly
Id.;
see also United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.
2009).
the
substantive
reasonableness
of
the
sentence,
taking
into
51.
Garrett states that he does not dispute the extent of
the departure, but contends that the district courts basis for
a departure was unjustified--a procedural error.
He asserts
incorrectly that the courts only basis for departing was the
inadequacy of his criminal history.
the
district
courts
consideration
of
his
prison
infractions
Cir.)
tendency
(departure
toward
justified
recidivism,
by
evidence
including
prison
of
defendants
infractions),
the
departure
on
his
uncounted
juvenile
adjudications.
This claim is meritless because the district court did not rely
on Garretts juvenile record when it explained the basis for the
departure.
Garrett also contends that the district court failed
to correctly calculate his guideline range.
However, Garrett is
relate
to
the
establishment
of
the
advisory
Guideline
the
waiver
was
knowing
and
enforceable.
5
intelligent,
and
is
thus
We
significant
conclude
that
procedural
Garrett
error.
The
has
not
identified
any
court
did
not
the
select
factors,
variance,
Gall,
sentence
was
district
court
on
522
not
whole,
U.S.
at
51,
substantively
did
not
justify
we
are
the
extent
its
the
that
the
Therefore,
the
satisfied
unreasonable.
abuse
of
discretion
in
sentencing
Garrett.
We
therefore
district court.
Garrett
challenges
and
materials
legal
before
the
sentence
imposed
by
the
guideline range.
facts
affirm
the
district
courts
calculation
of
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART