US v. Michael Lewis, No. 09-4885 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4885 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL K. LEWIS, Defendant Appellant, v. TERRY MASSEY; CLARETTA TAYLOR; THURMAN SPEIGHT; PHYLLIS HUBBARD; PAULA GORDON, SPEIGHT; JANET Movants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:08-cr-00289-DKC-1) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. * Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. * This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Booth M. Ripke, NATHANS & BIDDLE, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Gina L. Simms, Jonathan Su, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Michael K. Lewis appeals from his seventy-eight month sentence imposed pursuant bankruptcy fraud. was unreasonable to his guilty plea to wire and On appeal, Lewis asserts that his sentence based upon the district court s failure to fully consider and apply the statutory sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Finding no error, we affirm. A sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion with the review encompassing substantive reasonableness. 51 (2007). both procedural soundness and Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, The district court is not required to list every § 3553(a) factor in fashioning a sentence, see United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006), and the record reflects that the properly considered court listened both the to Lewis's proffered arguments evidence and and the § 3553(a) factors. It is undisputed that Lewis s sentence was within the properly within calculated the Sentencing Guidelines Guidelines range is range. presumptively A sentence reasonable. Applying this presumption of reasonableness to Lewis s sentence, see United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008), we conclude that reasonableness Lewis and that cannot his rebut sentence the is presumption reasonable. of The district court provided detailed and appropriate reasoning for 3 its chosen sentence, and Lewis s disagreement with the factors that the court chose to rely upon does not support a conclusion that the court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm Lewis s sentence and deny his petition for immediate release. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 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.
