US v. Robert Tam, No. 11-4109 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4109 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ROBERT TAM, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:09-cr-01343-SB-1) Submitted: July 19, 2011 Decided: August 5, 2011 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Nettles, United States Attorney, M. Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Tam pleaded guilty to embezzlement, violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 657 (West Supp. 2011). Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2009) called for in The U.S. a sentencing range of thirty-three to forty-one months, and Tam received a thirty-month district sentence. court Tam imposed a now appeals, procedurally claiming that unreasonable the sentence because it failed to provide an adequate explanation for the sentence imposed. We affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. (2007). A district sentence court Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 is properly Guidelines range, sentencing factors, procedurally calculated considered analyzed the reasonable where defendant s the 18 U.S.C. any arguments § advisory 3553(a) presented (2006) by parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. at 49-50. the the Id. The district court is not required to robotically tick through § 3553(a) s every subsection. Johnson, 445 F.3d district court 339, must 345 place (4th on the Cir. United States v. 2006). record an However, the individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it. This individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit meaningful appellate review. 2 United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (internal footnote omitted). Upon provided an review, adequate we conclude that individualized the district assessment, taking court into account counsel s arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence, and did not abuse its discretion in imposing Tam s thirty-month sentence. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th 2010) Cir. (providing standard preserved procedural sentencing error); of review for properly see also Gall, 552 U.S. at 46. We accordingly affirm the district court s judgment. 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 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.
