US v. Chuckie Wood, No. 10-5027 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5027 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHUCKIE DALE WOOD, Defendant - Appellant.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. (1:09-cr-00339-NCT-1) Submitted: May 31, 2011 Decided: June 15, 2011 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew A. Victor, VICTOR VICTOR & HELGOE LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chuckie agreement, violation to of Dale Wood pled distribution 21 U.S.C. guilty, cocaine 841(a)(1) § of & pursuant to a plea hydrochloride, (b)(1)(B) (2006), in and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced Wood to a total of 262 months imprisonment, comprised of 262 months on the drug count and a concurrent 120 months on the firearm count. Wood appeals, challenging his sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. abuse of discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. consideration 2010). of This both reasonableness of a sentence. requires procedural the review and appellate substantive Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the defendant s advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently Regardless of explained whether the below, or within-Guidelines record an individualized the selected district court sentence, assessment 2 it based sentence. imposes must on an place the Id. above, on the particular facts of the case before it. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Wood first contends that the district court erred by failing to resolve his objection to a two-level adjustment in his offense level under U.S. Sentencing § 2D1.1(b) (2009) for possessing a firearm. Guidelines Manual However, as Wood concedes, the two-level adjustment did not affect his Guidelines range because he was sentenced as a career offender. Wood does not dispute the calculation of his career offender Guidelines range, but argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the court failed to carefully consider the § 3553(a) factors and provide an adequate reason for its sentence. A district court is not required to robotically tick through § 3553(a) s every subsection on the record. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). The sentencing court s explanation must be sufficient to satisfy the appellate court that [the district court] has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)). Reasons articulated by a district court for a given sentence need not be couched in the precise language of § 3553(a) as long as the reasons can be matched to a factor 3 appropriate for consideration under that statute and [are] clearly tied to [the defendant s] particular situation. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 658 (4th Cir. 2007). After reviewing court analyzed the the record, arguments we conclude presented that by the the district parties and sufficient explanation for the sentence it selected. gave a Although the court did not couch its analysis in the precise statutory language, consideration of the § 3553(a) factors was implicit in the district court s reasoning. We find no abuse of discretion and conclude that Wood s sentence is procedurally reasonable. Where there is no significant procedural error, we next assess taking the into substantive account extent the of reasonableness totality any of variance of the the from sentence, circumstances, including the the Guidelines range. United States v. Morace, 594 F.3d 340, 345-46 (4th Cir.) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 307 (2010). Guidelines If range, reasonable. the this sentence court may is within consider the it appropriate presumptively United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). Wood argues that the record is devoid of an explanation of why his 262-month sentence, the bottom of the Guidelines range, was not greater than necessary to comply with the sentencing purposes of § 3553(a)(2). 4 The district court responded to every argument Wood made in an effort to obtain a lower sentence, explaining evidence unpersuasive. did not factors, expressly tie consideration court s analysis. why it found his assertions and As previously stated, although the court its of reasoning the to factors particular was § 3553(a) implicit in the Finally, the court concluded, [c]onsidering the length of time you ve been involved in the offenses, and the things I said earlier, I simply cannot see going below the low end of the advisory guidelines. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Wood s sentence is substantively reasonable. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Wood 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 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.