United States v. Darl Vanmeter ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4696
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARL E. VANMETER, f/k/a Darl E. VanMeter,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:12-cr-00012-JPB-JSK-1)
Submitted: February 15, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013
Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg,
West Virginia; L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
States Attorney, Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darl E. Vanmeter pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to aiding and abetting the possession of
materials used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6), (d)(2) (2006). The district
court sentenced Vanmeter below his Guidelines range to ninety-
six months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Vanmeter challenges the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, contending that it
is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) (2006), particularly rehabilitation. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
This court reviews the district court’s sentence,
“whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
Guidelines range[,] under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). When
reviewing a sentence for substantive reasonableness, this court
examines “the totality of the circumstances, including the
extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.” Id. at 51.
We must be satisfied that the district court “considered the
parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis” for its decision.
United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.
2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that Vanmeter’s ninety-six-month, below-
Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. The district
2
court demonstrated that it considered Vanmeter’s arguments for a
thirty-six-month sentence, as well as the relevant § 3553(a)
factors, and had a reasoned basis for its sentencing decision.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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
3