US v. David Norman, No. 11-4491 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4491 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DAVID L. NORMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:10-cr-00004-jpj-pms-2) Submitted: September 26, 2011 Before DAVIS and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 3, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Nancy Combs Dickenson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Debbie H. Stevens, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David L. Norman pled guilty to one count of possession of a prohibited object § 1791(a)(2) (2006). top of the in prison in violation of 18 U.S.C. The district court sentenced Norman at the Guidelines range to thirty months imprisonment. Norman appeals his sentence, contending that the court summarily rejected his argument that his extended period in punitive segregation in the Special Housing Unit warranted a variance or departure from the advisory Guidelines range. Norman also contends that the court failed to articulate why the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) supported a sentence at the top end of the advisory Guidelines range. We deferential States, review a sentence abuse-of-discretion 552 U.S. 38, 51 We affirm. for reasonableness (2007). A United reasonableness review includes both procedural and substantive components. sentence is procedurally reasonable a v. standard. Gall under where the Id. district A court committed no significant procedural errors, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or insufficiently explaining the selected sentence. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837-38 (4th Cir. 2010). sentence is circumstances. assessed The substantive reasonableness of a in light of Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 2 the totality of the While a sentence may be substantively unreasonable if the § 3553(a) factors do not support the sentence, [r]eviewing courts must be mindful that, regardless of the abuse-of-discretion sentencing individual standard decisions. of case, review United . States the . to all Diosdado-Star, v. . deferential applies 630 F.3d 359, 366 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2946 (2011) (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 52). Moreover, a sentence that falls within a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). We find Norman s claims to be without merit. The record discloses that the district court properly considered the factors under § 3553(a), sentence was imposed. tenure in the and explained why the thirty-month The court expressly mentioned Norman s Special Housing Unit as a factor for consideration, and stated that if not for his time there, the court might have imposed a longer sentence. We accordingly affirm the conviction and sentence. dispense with oral argument because the 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.
