United States v. Deandre Estelle , 562 F. App'x 168 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4568
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEANDRE SCOTT ESTELLE, a/k/a Dre,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00020-JPB-JES-6)
Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014
Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric S. Black, Berkley Springs, West Virginia, for Appellant.
William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Randolph J.
Bernard, Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Deandre Scott Estelle pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute
controlled substances and was sentenced to 165 months’
imprisonment. He appeals, challenging the reasonableness of his
sentence.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both
the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence.
Id.; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir.
2010). In determining the procedural reasonableness of a
sentence, we consider whether the district court properly
calculated the defendant’s Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties,
and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552
U.S. at 51. A sentence imposed within the properly calculated
Guidelines range is presumed reasonable by this court. See Rita
v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010).
We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by
the parties and find that Estelle’s sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. Therefore we affirm.
2
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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3