US v. Timothy Banks, No. 10-4097 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4097 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. TIMOTHY LEE BANKS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (6:09-cr-00012-nkm-1) Submitted: May 27, 2010 Decided: June 16, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, R. Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy Lee Banks pled guilty without a plea agreement to two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and was sentenced to concurrent eighty-four-month prison terms. He now appeals his sentence, arguing that it is unreasonable. We affirm. I Banks base offense level was 20. Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) See U.S. Sentencing (2009). Three subtracted for acceptance of responsibility. levels were See USSG § 3E1.1. Banks total offense level was 17, his criminal history category was VI, and his advisory Guidelines range was 51-63 months. There were no objections to the presentence report. At sentencing, defense counsel argued that Banks psychological and physical problems, as well as the fact that he was forty-nine and therefore statistically less likely to commit future crimes, Guidelines justified range. The a sentence United at States the low replied end that of the light sentences Banks had received for past offenses had done little to deter his criminal conduct. In pronouncing sentence, the court stated that Banks posed a danger to the community. The court referred to Banks criminal history, much of which was not included when computing 2 his twenty criminal history offenses were violent. points. Many of Banks past The court agreed that a person of Banks age ordinarily would no longer be violent; however, this was not the case with Banks, whom the court described as a rather lawless and dangerous person. The court commented that Banks could receive needed treatment for his physical and emotional problems while in prison. Of paramount concern to the court in sentencing Banks was the danger of recidivism and the need to protect the community from further crimes. This, the court found, warranted an upward departure of considerable months. The court sentenced Banks to concurrent eighty-fourmonth prison terms. it had considered In imposing sentence, the court stated that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors as well as the advisory Guidelines range. II We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007); see also 742 (4th Cir.), cert. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. United States v. Seay, 553 F.3d 732, denied, 130 S. Ct. 127 (2009). Our initial review is for significant procedural error, including failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly 3 erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence--including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. We the sentence Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. next consider imposed. the Id. substantive At this reasonableness stage, we take of into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance district from court the decides Guidelines to impose range. a If the outside the Id. sentence Guidelines range, it must ensure that its justification supports the degree of the variance. 155, 161 (4th Cir.), cert. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). We give due deference to the district the court s decision that § 3553(a) whole, justify the extent of the variance. factors, on a Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Our review of the record convinces us that Banks variant sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors and the parties arguments at sentencing, and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the variant sentence. 4 III We accordingly affirm. 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 5
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.
