US v. David Glenn, No. 10-5259 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5259 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DAVID LEE GLENN, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:09-cr-01327-GRA-1) Submitted: June 17, 2011 Decided: July 8, 2011 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Lee Glenn was sentenced to 300 months in prison following his § 2113(a), conviction (d) of (2006). armed Glenn bank now robbery, appeals 18 his U.S.C. sentence, contending that the district court did not adequately explain why it rejected his plea for a lower sentence. We affirm. According to Glenn s presentence investigation report (PSR), his Guidelines base offense Manual level § 2B3.1(a) property of a was 20. (2009). because the federal taken. See USSG § 2B3.1(b)(1). See Two U.S. levels financial Sentencing were added institution was Three levels were added because See USSG § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E). Glenn brandished a dangerous weapon. Glenn s adjusted offense level was 25. (J.A. vol. 2). Glenn was a career offender. See USSG § 4B1.1(a). The maximum statutory penalty for armed bank robbery is twentyfive years. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). Accordingly, Glenn s offense See USSG § 4B1.1(b)(B). level as a career offender was 34. Because this was higher than the level calculated under USSG § 2B3.1, Glenn s offense level was 34. history category was VI. statutory maximum of See id. twenty-five See id. His criminal Taking into account the years, Glenn s advisory Guidelines range was 262-300 months. At calculations sentencing, in the PSR defense were counsel correct. 2 agreed The court that the rejected Glenn s request that he receive acceptance of responsibility. an adjustment based on Glenn then asked for a below- Guidelines sentence based on his having been a productive member of society who had met his job and family responsibilities. After hearing from Glenn, the court sentenced him to 300 months in prison. In imposing sentence, the court stated that it had considered the advisory Guidelines as well as the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors. According to the court, the chosen sentence reflected the seriousness of Glenn s offense and provided just punishment for that offense. Additionally, the sentence took into account Glenn s criminal history and the need to protect the public and to deter future criminal conduct. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. In conducting our review, we first examine the sentence for significant procedural error, including failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [2006] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. . . . Id. In imposing sentence, the district court must provide an individualized assessment based upon the specific facts before it. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 3 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). A sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Assuming that the sentence is procedurally reasonable, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. At this stage, we take into account the totality of the circumstances. Id. Here, the district court correctly calculated Glenn s advisory Guidelines range, performed an individualized assessment of the § 3553(a) factors as they applied to the case, and stated in open court the reasons for the selected sentence. Glenn s sentence, which falls within his correctly calculated Guidelines range of 262-300 months, is presumptively reasonable. We reject Glenn s contention that his sentence is unreasonable because the court did not specifically address his request for a below-Guidelines sentence. Where a [sentencing] matter is . . . conceptually simple . . . and the record makes clear that the arguments, required. is it sentencing extensive court Nor sentencing sentence and Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007). the the evidence not that of the is necessary explanation considered court address every § 3553(a) factor on the record, United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006), or respond to each and every argument for leniency that it 4 rejects in arriving at a reasonable sentence. United States v. Jarilla-Luna, 478 F.3d 1226, 1229 (10th Cir. 2007). We discretion hold in that the sentencing district Glenn to court 300 did not months abuse in its prison. Accordingly, we affirm. 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.
