US v. Kirkpatrick, No. 06-4041 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4041 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GARY ALLEN KIRKPATRICK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00017) Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: December 27, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Donald David Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary Allen Kirkpatrick was convicted by a jury of two counts of abusive sexual contact with a child under the age of twelve years in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(1), (c) (2000) and sentenced to concurrent terms of seventy-one months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. On appeal, we granted the parties joint motion for resentencing in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). On remand, Kirkpatrick objected under Sentencing Guidelines to his sentence Manual enhancements ( U.S.S.G. ) §§ U.S. 2A3.4(b)(3), 4B1.5(b)(1) (2003), because they were determined by the district court by a preponderance of the evidence. overruled the objections and again The district court sentenced Kirkpatrick to seventy-one months in prison and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Kirkpatrick s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court erred in determining Kirkpatrick s advisory guideline range. Kirkpatrick was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed by the district court as long as it is within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th - 2 - Cir. 2005). A sentence may be unreasonable for both substantive and procedural reasons. United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 434 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). within a properly calculated advisory A sentence guideline range United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, presumptively reasonable. 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). presumption can only be is rebutted by showing the This sentence is unreasonable when measured against the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006), pet. for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (July 21, 2006) (No. 06-5439). In considering whether the sentence is unreasonable, we review the district court s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir. 2006). We have reviewed the record and conclude Kirkpatrick s sentence is reasonable. The district court properly found his advisory guideline range using facts found by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). Both the two-level supervisory control enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A3.4(b)(3) and the five-level increase for repeat and dangerous 4B1.5(b)(1) sex were offender properly against applied minors in under this case. U.S.S.G. § Because Kirkpatrick s sentence was within a properly calculated guideline range, it is presumptively reasonable. - 3 - The district court considered the range, the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), and the parties potentially meritorious arguments and reasonably concluded a sentence at the high end of the range was appropriate in this case. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.
