US v. Joe Joyner, No. 07-4401 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4401 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOE JOYNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:06-cr-00123-H-ALL) Submitted: February 27, 2008 Decided: March 10, 2008 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joe Clinton Joyner pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). On appeal Joyner contends his 156-month sentence is unreasonable. We affirm. Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district courts for standard. reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion sentencing Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). a defendant, a district court must: (1) When properly calculate the guidelines range; (2) determine whether a sentence within that range serves the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); (3) implement mandatory statutory limitations; and (4) explain its reasons for selecting a sentence. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). A sentence within a correctly calculated advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006); Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence). Our review of the record reveals no procedural or substantive error with respect to Joyner s 156-month sentence. The sentencing court followed the required steps in sentencing Joyner: (1) it properly calculated the guidelines range; (2) allowed both parties an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deemed - 2 - appropriate; and (3) considered the § 3553(a) factors. See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 596-97. The court considered counsel s argument that it should take into account in sentencing Joyner the fact that his IQ is 68, in the mild mental retardation range. did not request a sentence outside particular sentence within the range. Joyner cannot overcome the of the Moreover, Joyner guidelines, or a Under these circumstances, presumptive reasonableness of his sentence within the guidelines range. Accordingly, we affirm Joyner s sentence. 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 - 3 -
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.
