United States v. Reggie Wimbush , 521 F. App'x 276 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4943
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
REGGIE LEE WIMBUSH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00267-MOC-1)
Submitted: May 14, 2013 Decided: May 30, 2013
Before DAVIS, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henderson Hill, Executive Director, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN
NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal Defender,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins,
United States Attorney, Melissa L. Rikard, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reggie Lee Wimbush appeals the district court’s
judgment imposing a 57-month sentence following his guilty plea
to one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343(West Supp. 2013); one count of mail fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West Supp. 2013); one count of theft of public
money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (2006); one count of
identity fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7),
(b)(1)(D) (2006); and one count of aggravated identity theft, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (b) (2006). Wimbush
argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because
the district court failed to address specific mitigating factors
raised by counsel at the sentencing hearing. * We affirm.
We review Wimbush’s sentence for reasonableness under
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). The court first reviews for
“significant procedural error,” which includes “failing to
consider the § 3553(a) factors” and “failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51. To avoid these
*
Wimbush preserved this claim by “drawing arguments from
§ 3553 for a sentence different than the one ultimately
imposed.” United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir.
2010).
2
procedural errors, the district court must make an
“individualized assessment” in which it applies the relevant
§ 3553(a) factors to the specific facts of the defendant’s case.
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009)
(emphasis omitted). An extensive explanation of the sentence is
not required as long as the appellate court is satisfied “‘that
the district court has considered the parties’ arguments and has
a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking
authority.’” United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th
Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356
(2007)) (brackets omitted).
Contrary to Wimbush’s arguments, we find that the
district court clearly considered the § 3553(a) factors and
arguments in mitigation and adequately explained the sentence.
See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir.
2006) (stating that district court must only provide “some
indication” that it “considered the potentially meritorious
arguments raised by both parties about sentencing”). We
therefore conclude that Wimbush’s sentence is procedurally
reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4