US v. Antonio Owens, No. 08-4766 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4766 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ANTONIO OWENS, a/k/a Tonio, Defendant Appellant, and RANDY MARTIN; LUTHER BRYAN; ALISIA H. AKBAR; LACARIA BROWN; GEORGEAN MCCONNELL; GUSSIE D. NOLLKAMPER; FLORENCE NOLLKAMPER; CHRISTOPHER M. MORRIS; LAVACA COUNTY TEXAS; JOSEPH E. MCCONNELL; JOHN M. WARTHER; WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INCORPORATED; CHERYL L. AMAKER; DONNA C. ADKINS; CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Parties-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-26) Submitted: March 19, 2009 Decided: April 6, 2009 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and John Preston BAILEY, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey M. Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, P.S.C., Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Jane B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Antonio Owens was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and was sentenced to life in prison. challenging his conviction and sentence. Owens appealed, We affirmed Owens conviction and rejected claims relating to Owens sentence, but because he was Guidelines, sentenced vacated and under the remanded then-mandatory for resentencing with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Sentencing consistent See United States v. Davis, 270 F. App x 236 (4th Cir. March 17, 2008) (unpublished). On remand, the district court imposed variant sentence on Owens and he timely appealed. that while sentence the upon district him, the court correctly district a Owens claims imposed court s 300-month a variant variance was insufficient because: (i) Owens had a disadvantaged childhood; (ii) his Guidelines range was based overwhelmingly on drug weight, thereby making the range unreasonably high; and (iii) there are too many incarcerated people in the United States and a 300-month sentence would be a waste for [Owens] and society at large. We imposed on affirm remand. the After district Booker, 3 court s we variant review a sentence sentence for reasonableness, using an abuse of discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008) ( [A] sentence that deviates from the Guidelines is reviewed under the same deferential abuse-of-discretion standard as imposed within the applicable guidelines range. ). a sentence The court must give due deference to the district court s decision that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors justify the sentence. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 162 (4th Cir. 2008). Even if this court would have imposed a different sentence, this fact alone will not justify vacatur of the district court s sentence. Id. At Owens resentencing, the district court heard counsel s argument regarding the weight that should be afforded the § 3553(a) factors, afforded Owens an opportunity to allocute, and thoroughly considered the § 3553(a) factors before imposing Owens sentence. adequately explained its We conclude that the district court rationale for imposing the variant sentence, 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. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d at 260-61; United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-76 (4th Cir. 2007). 4 Because remand to judgment. legal before be find reasonable, Owens we variant affirm sentence the imposed district on court s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the we court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
