US v. James Dillard, No. 09-5191 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5191 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAMES THOMAS DILLARD, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00394-WO-1) Submitted: June 29, 2010 Before KING and Circuit Judge. DAVIS, Decided: Circuit Judges, and July 20, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amy Lee Copeland, AMY LEE COPELAND, LLC, Savannah, Georgia, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Graham T. Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Thomas Dillard pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of possession, with the intent to defraud, of fifteen or more unauthorized access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3) (2006). district under court the calculated U.S. Dillard s Sentencing advisory Guidelines Guidelines The range (2008) Manual at 15 to 21 months imprisonment and imposed a variance sentence of 27 months imprisonment. challenging the prison term. * We Dillard timely appeals his sentence, substantive reasonableness of the 27-month sentence, whether We affirm. review the district court s inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range, under a deferential abuse-of-discretion Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). entails appellate consideration of both substantive reasonableness of a sentence. challenges the 27-month prison the standard. This review procedural Id. at 51. sentence as and Dillard substantively unreasonable, but concedes its procedural reasonableness. * Although Dillard has completed serving his term of imprisonment, this appeal is not moot, because Dillard is still subject to a three-year term of supervised release. If Dillard were to prevail on the merits of this appeal, the district court could grant him relief by shortening or modifying the terms of his supervised release. 2 In reasonable, determining we circumstances, whether take into including the Guidelines range. a sentence account extent is the of totality any Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. substantively of the variance from the Although we presume on appeal that a sentence within a properly-calculated Guidelines range is reasonable, see United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007), we may not presume that a sentence outside the Guidelines range is unreasonable, see United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). In reviewing a sentence outside the Guidelines range, we may consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due deference to the district court s decision that the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. [A] major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one[,] [b]ut a district court need not justify a sentence outside the Guidelines range with a finding of extraordinary circumstances. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Cir. 2008) Even if we would have imposed a different sentence, this fact alone will not justify vacatur of the district court s sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Dillard s 27-month variant sentence is reasonable. district court heard counsel s 3 argument on the The appropriate sentence, heard Dillard s lengthy allocution, and thoroughly considered relevant § 3553(a) factors, namely, Dillard s history and characteristics, the nature and circumstances of his offense, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment. We find that the sentence was selected pursuant to a reasoned process in accordance with law, and that the reasons relied upon by the district court are plausible and justify the sentence imposed. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-76 (4th Cir. 2007). Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court s judgment. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 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.
