US v. Akil Dorsey, No. 09-4170 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4170 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AKIL DORSEY, a/k/a Thomas Michael Reed, a/k/a Kil Dorsey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:07-cr-00404-PJM-1) Submitted: December 30, 2009 Decided: January 14, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Joanna Silver, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland; Martin G. Bahl, Staff Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Mushtaq Z. Gunja, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Akil possession (2006). Dorsey of a pleaded firearm, in guilty to being violation of 18 a felon U.S.C. in § 922(g) The Sentencing Guidelines called for a sentencing range of 262 months to 327 months, and Dorsey received a 300-month sentence. Dorsey now appeals, claiming the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence because it did not address the arguments of counsel, focused almost entirely on Dorsey s danger to the community, and did not explain why a 300month sentence sentencing. was necessary to meet the statutory goals of Finding no error, we affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 This review requires appellate consideration of both the procedural Id. After and substantive determining reasonableness whether the district of a sentence. court properly calculated the defendant s advisory Guidelines range, this court must assess whether the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. We presume a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range is reasonable. Id.; United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). the district Moreover, the court must give due deference to court s decision that 2 the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. factors justify the sentence. Even if the reviewing court would have imposed a different sentence, this fact alone is insufficient district court s judgment. to justify reversing the United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 160 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008). In this case, the district court complied § 3553(a) and this court s sentencing precedent. with The district court began the sentencing proceeding with a lengthy discussion of the Presentence Investigation Report. Then, after hearing sentencing arguments from the Government, Dorsey s attorney, and Dorsey himself, the district court expressed its concern about Dorsey s conduct and his criminal history. Further, the district court referred to the need to protect the public, as well as the weapons. need to deter Dorsey and others from carrying On this record, we conclude Dorsey has not rebutted the presumption that his sentence was reasonable. We sentence. legal before accordingly Dorsey s conviction and We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the affirm court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
