US v. Edward Washington, No. 12-4514 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4514 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWARD WASHINGTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00388-TDS-1) Submitted: December 5, 2012 Decided: December 13, 2012 Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Stephen T. Inman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edward Washington appeals his sentence of ten months imprisonment after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to the theft of Government funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (2006). Washington challenges reasonableness of his sentence. only the substantive We affirm. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence using the abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). A sentence below the applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012). only by a showing that the United States v. Susi, 674 Such presumption is rebutted sentence is unreasonable measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. when United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006). Washington has failed to overcome the presumption of reasonableness. applicable Washington Guidelines explained its received range. selected The sentence, a sentence district citing the court below the thoroughly lengthy period during which Washington s crime was ongoing and the need for deterrence. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in selecting the sentence. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this 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.
