US v. Travis Dittrich, No. 09-4311 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4311 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS EDWARD DITTRICH, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. (Count 16). (JA 6-41). § 2252(a)(4)(B) (West Supp. 2009) The district court imposed a 144-month sentence for Counts 1-15 and 120-month concurrent sentence for Count 16. Both sentences properly-calculated were advisory imposed Sentencing within Dittrich s 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 Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. court s sentencing of Dittrich. 38, 49 (2007) (providing review standard). of Dittrich s substantively 325, 328 sentence it was procedurally and reasonable, United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d (4th reasonableness reveals Second, our review Cir. to a Guidelines range. (4th Cir. 2007). 2009), and sentence we within apply the a presumption proper of Sentencing United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 Finally, we conclude that the district court did not err in rejecting Dittrich s argument that his criminal history category of III over-represented 2 his actual criminal history, see generally U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3(b) (2008) (permitting downward departure based on overrepresented 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, dispense with oral we affirm argument Dittrich s because the sentence. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
