US v. Peter Vanderwerff, No. 11-4595 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Unpublished opinion after submission on briefs: Affirmed
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4595 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PETER MICHAEL VANDERWERFF, Defendant -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. (1:10-cr-00311-NCT-1) Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Peter Michael Vanderwerff appeals the reasonableness of his 120-month sentence imposed after a plea of guilty to one count of possessing materials containing visual images of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2) (West Supp. 2011). We We affirm. review a discretion standard. sentence under a deferential abuse of Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We first analyze the procedural reasonableness of the sentence by ensuring that the district court committed no significant procedural errors, such as failing to calculate or improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. 837-38 (4th Cir. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 2010). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. totality of the circumstances. so, we presume that a sentence within Guidelines range is reasonable. F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). a In doing properly-calculated United States v. Allen, 491 That presumption may be rebutted by a showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the [18 Montes-Pineda, U.S.C.] 445 F.3d § 3553 375, factors. 379 quotation marks omitted). 2 (4th Cir. United 2006) States v. (internal Contrary to Vanderwerff s assertions, the record discloses that the district court properly set the Guidelines range at no procedural unreasonableness in the district court s sentence. Nor do we detect 120 months. substantive unreasonableness Guidelines sentence. rationale for Thus, we find in Vanderwerff s within- The district court cogently explained its imposing the statutory maximum sentence. In affirming, we respect the district court s broad discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. defendant s sentence. § 3553(a) factors and imposing a See United States v. Jeffrey, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 187 (2011). Accordingly, we 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 We acknowledge Appellant s heavy reliance on the Second Circuit s reasoning in United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (critiquing the child pornography guideline). We are not persuaded that the approach taken in that case compels us to disturb the district court s sentence here. 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.
