US v. Donte Rollerson, No. 10-5184 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5184 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONTE D. ROLLERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:09-cr-01227-PMD-1) Submitted: June 21, 2011 Decided: July 13, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Nick Bianchi, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donte D. Rollerson pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a weapon (Count 1) and possession of firearm with an obliterated serial number (Count 2). Rollerson was sentenced to seventy months of imprisonment for Count 1 and sixty months for Count 2, to run concurrently. The seventy-month sentence was the bottom of Rollerson s correctly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Rollerson contends that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review a outside, sentence or for reasonableness, significantly outside the whether inside, Guidelines just range, and this Court applies a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). ensure that procedural the error. district Id. court committed 51. Only at if We first must no the significant sentence is procedurally reasonable can this Court evaluate the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, discretion standard of review. again using the abuse of Id.; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). We find no procedural or substantive error. Moreover, if a sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we apply a presumption on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. 2 United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) ( A sentence within the proper Sentencing Guidelines reasonable. ) (citation omitted). range is presumptively When reviewing a sentence for substantive reasonableness, we take into account the totality of the circumstances Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, and the presumption of reasonableness is rebutted only by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the [18 U.S.C.] ยง 3553(a) [(2006)] factors. United States v. Montes Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Rollerson has failed to rebut the presumption. Accordingly, dispense with oral we affirm argument Rollerson s because the sentence. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented 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.
