US v. Richard Pruitt, No. 09-4681 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4681 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RICHARD DARRYL PRUITT, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00133-NCT-1) Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: May 14, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, * and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. * Judge Michael was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Richard Darryl Pruitt pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one convicted felon, 924(a)(2) count in (2006). of possession violation The of district 120 months imprisonment. 18 court of a firearm U.S.C. a §§ 922(g)(1), sentenced He now appeals. by Pruitt to Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred in imposing the sentence. Finding no error, we affirm. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for review. Our review of the transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the district court substantially complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Pruitt s guilty plea infringed. court and that Pruitt s substantial rights were not Critically, the transcript reveals that the district ensured that the plea was supported by an independent factual basis and that Pruitt entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily with an understanding of the attendant consequences. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). We review discretion standard. Pruitt s sentence under an abuse-of- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 3 (2007). In conducting this review, we must first examine the sentence for significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] based on § 3553(a) clearly [(2006)] erroneous factors, facts, explain the chosen sentence. sentence, the district or selecting failing Id. at 51. court must make a to sentence adequately When rendering a an individualized assessment based on the facts presented, applying the relevant § 3553(a) before factors it. to the United specific States v. circumstances Carter, 564 of F.3d the case 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). The district court must also state in open court the particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence and set forth enough to satisfy this arguments and court has a that it reasoned has basis legal decisionmaking authority. omitted). considered for the exercising parties [its] own Id. (internal quotation marks The court, however, is not required to robotically tick through § 3553(a) s every subsection. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). If the sentence is free of procedural error, we then consider the tak[ing] into substantive account Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. the reasonableness totality of of the the sentence, circumstances. If the sentence is within the appropriate 4 Guidelines range, this court applies a presumption on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). We conclude that the district court did not commit procedural or substantive error in sentencing Pruitt. properly calculated and sentence and argument heard allocution. The treated court as from advisory the considered the parties the The court Guidelines and relevant Pruitt s § 3553(a) factors, addressing on the record the nature and circumstances of the offense, Pruitt s history and characteristics, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of Pruitt s offense and to deter Pruitt. Further, neither counsel nor Pruitt offers any grounds to rebut the presumption on appeal that the within-Guidelines sentence of 120 months imprisonment is reasonable. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment and deny Pruitt s motion for other relief. This court requires that counsel inform Pruitt, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Pruitt requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Pruitt. 5 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 6
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.
