US v. Matthew Dury, No. 08-4897 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4897 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MATTHEW JAMES DURY, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00016-LHT-1) Submitted: June 11, 2009 Decided: July 10, 2009 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carol Ann Bauer, Morganton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Matthew James Dury pled guilty to receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) & (b)(1) (2006). In sentencing Dury, the district court determined that he had engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor and consequently enhanced Dury s offense level five levels pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 2G2.2(b)(5) (2007). The district court then sentenced Dury to 204 months imprisonment, which fell within his advisory guidelines range. On appeal, counsel for Dury has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the district court erred in applying the USSG § 2G2.2(b)(5) enhancement. This court reviews sentencing enhancements under a mixed standard of review: findings of fact are subject to a clearly erroneous interpretation of standard the and sentencing legal conclusions, guidelines, are including reviewed de novo. United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir. 2006). The Government need only establish the facts supporting a sentencing enhancement under USSG Dury was informed of his right supplemental brief. He has not done so. 2 § 2G2.2(b)(5) to file a by a pro se preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 460 (4th Cir. 2004). Section enhancement if 2G2.2(b)(5) a defendant provides engaged in for a a five pattern of level activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor. § 2G2.2(b)(5). A pattern of activity involving USSG the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor is defined as any combination of two or more separate instances of the sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a minor by the defendant, whether or not the abuse or offense; exploitation (B) conviction (A) the involved for such occurred same during minor; conduct. USSG or the course (C) resulted § 2G2.2(b)(5) of the in a comment. (n.1). Dury first suggests that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence based on a statement he gave enforcement because his statement lacks reliability. reviewed the record and determine that Dury s to law We have statement was sufficiently reliable that the district court did not err in relying on it in imposing the § 2G2.2(b)(5) enhancement. Dury next suggests that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence pursuant to USSG § 2G2.2(b)(5) based on a state conviction for simple assault. The charging document in that case stated that Dury held a thirteen-year-old child on a couch and attempted to kiss her. 3 Accordingly, we find no error in the application of the enhancement. See Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 26 (2005). In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no infirmity that calls Dury s conviction into question. We conclude, however, that Dury s sentence must be vacated as the district court s explanation of its exercise of discretionary sentencing authority does not pass muster under United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009). This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district court under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). In reviewing a sentence, the appellate court must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. 128 S. Ct. at 597. Gall If there are no procedural errors, then the appellate court considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented. Carter, 564 (internal F.3d at quotations Accordingly, a 328 (quoting sentencing 128 S. (emphasis omitted) Gall, in the court must apply Ct. at 597) original)). the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the particular facts presented and must 4 state in open court the particular reasons that support its chosen sentence. Id. Stating in open court the particular reasons for a chosen sentence requires the district court to set forth enough to satisfy this court that the district court has a reasoned basis for its decision and has considered the parties arguments. Id. Here, as in Carter, the district court did not justify Dury s sentence Carter, 564 with F.3d at an adequate 328-29. At individualized sentencing, rationale. defense counsel requested the district court to sentence Dury at the lowest possible level. In support of her request, defense counsel referenced Dury s difficult upbringing and life. In imposing a sentence near the middle of Dury s advisory guidelines range, the district court stated only pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and U.S. v. Booker, it is the judgment of the Court, having § 3553(a) considered that the the defendant, factors Matthew noted James in 18 U.S.C. Dury, is hereby committed to the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, to be imprisoned for a term of 204 months. The district court failed to state how or which particular § 3553(a) factors applied to Dury, and the court s statement that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors could have applied to any sentence, regardless of the whether offense the or defendant. district court Id. at imposes 5 329. an Regardless above, below, of or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it. Id. at 330. The record here simply fails to reveal why the district court deemed the sentence it imposed appropriate. Accordingly, while we affirm Dury s conviction, we vacate Dury s sentence and remand for resentencing in light of Carter. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.