United States v. Dittrich ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4311
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS EDWARD DITTRICH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (7:08-cr-00094-D-1)
Submitted: February 19, 2010 Decided: March 15, 2010
Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne
M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Travis Edward Dittrich pled guilty to fifteen counts
of receiving child pornography, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252(a)(2) (West
Supp. 2009) (Counts 1-15), and to one count of possessing child
pornography, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252(a)(4)(B) (West Supp. 2009)
(Count 16). (JA 6-41). The district court imposed a 144-month
sentence for Counts 1-15 and 120-month concurrent sentence for
Count 16. Both sentences were imposed within Dittrich’s
properly-calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.
Dittrich timely appeals his sentence, alleging that the district
court procedurally erred because it rejected his assertion that
his criminal history was overstated. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
First, we find no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s sentencing of Dittrich. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 49 (2007) (providing review standard). Second, our review
of Dittrich’s sentence reveals it was procedurally and
substantively reasonable, United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009), and we apply a presumption of
reasonableness to a sentence within the proper Sentencing
Guidelines range. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193
(4th Cir. 2007). Finally, we conclude that the district court
did not err in rejecting Dittrich’s argument that his criminal
history category of III over-represented his actual criminal
2
history, see generally U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §
4A1.3(b) (2008) (permitting downward departure based on over-
represented criminal history), and that the district court
adequately explained on the record its decision not to depart on
this basis. Carter, 564 F.3d at 328.
Accordingly, we affirm Dittrich’s sentence. 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