US v. Said Omari, No. 09-4829 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4829 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SAID OMARI, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:08-cr-01254-TLW-1) Submitted: August 4, 2010 Decided: August 16, 2010 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William I. Diggs, THE LAW FIRM OF WILLIAM I. DIGGS, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Said Omari pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, ecstasy, and 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006) ( Count One ), and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006) ( Count Three ). court sentenced Omari to seventy-two months The district imprisonment on Count One and sixty months imprisonment on Count Three, to be served consecutively. guidelines range. On Omari s sentence fell within his advisory Omari timely noted his appeal. appeal, counsel for Omari has filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). a brief In his Anders brief, counsel suggests that the district court erred in denying his request for a variance sentence. * We affirm. 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, 41 (2007); United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). must first procedural ensure error. that the Gall, 552 In reviewing a sentence, we district U.S. * at court 51. committed If we find no no Omari, informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, has not done so. 2 procedural error, we then consider reasonableness of the sentence. within a properly calculated Id. the substantive We presume that a sentence guidelines range is reasonable. See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). Cir. 2009) Accordingly, a sentencing court must apply the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors to the particular facts presented and must state in open court the particular reasons that support its chosen To sentence. Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) (2006)). meet this requirement, the district court must set forth enough to show consideration defendant imposing or a of a the reasoned parties prosecutor different basis for its arguments. presents sentence Id. nonfrivolous than that set decision Where reasons forth in and the for the advisory Guidelines, a district judge should address the party s arguments and explain why he has rejected those arguments. Id. (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007)). Failure to do so constitutes procedural error. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not commit procedural error in sentencing 3 Omari. Additionally, Omari s sentence is substantively reasonable, as it falls within his advisory guidelines range, and the record does not rebut the presumption of reasonableness that this court applies to such a sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Omari s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Omari, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Omari requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Omari. 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 4
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.
