US v. Maurice Dugger, No. 07-4973 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4973 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MAURICE DUGGER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00197) Submitted: April 30, 2008 Decided: May 20, 2008 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy N. Giatras, THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Monica L. Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Maurice Dugger pled guilty to distribution of cocaine base (crack) and was sentenced to 121 months imprisonment. On appeal, we determined that the district court improperly enhanced Dugger s offense level by two levels based on his sale of illegal drugs while in prison. resentencing. We vacated the sentence and remanded for The district court conducted a resentencing hearing and sentenced Dugger to 97 months imprisonment. He again appeals, contending that the district court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007) factors in determining his sentence. We disagree and therefore affirm Dugger s sentence. Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district courts for standard. reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597-98 (2007); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007) (discussing procedure district courts must follow in sentencing defendant). Here, the district court properly calculated the guideline range and correctly treated the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory. Dugger contends that the court did not consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a). The district court need not robotically tick through § 3553(a) s every subsection but should provide [this Court] an assurance that the sentencing court considered the § 3553(a) - 2 - factors with regard to the particular defendant . . . . 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007). United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d Here, the district court explained that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors and stated that the 97month sentence reflects the nature and circumstance of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the needs for deterrence. basis for a departure. The court also stated that it found no We find that the district court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors. Further, we find that the 97-month sentence, which is the bottom of the advisory guideline range, and well below the twentyyear statutory maximum sentence, see 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West 1999 & Supp. 2007), is reasonable. See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying presumption of correctness to within-guideline sentence); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness of within-guideline sentence). affirm Dugger s sentence. Accordingly, we We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately addressed 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.
