US v. Ricky Moore, No. 12-4604 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4604 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RICKY ALLEN MOORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cr-00018-JAB-1) Submitted: February 5, 2013 Decided: February 27, 2013 Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Carlyle Sherrill, III, SHERRILL & CAMERON, PLLC, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ricky Moore pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (2006). in The violation district of court 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), sentenced Moore to 924(a)(2) twenty-one months imprisonment, to run consecutively with a state sentence imposed for violation of the terms of Moore s probation. appeal, Moore discretion by argues that imposing a the district consecutive court On abused For sentence. its the following reasons, we affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential States, abuse U.S. 38, 552 of discretion 51 standard. (2007); see Gall also v. United United States v. Diosdado Star, 630 F.3d 359, 363 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2946 (2011). We first review for significant procedural errors, including whether the district court failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors. Gall, 552 U.S. at 46. If we find a sentence procedurally reasonable, we then consider substantive reasonableness, applying a totality of the circumstances test. Id. Finally, Guidelines range, reasonableness. Moore unreasonable consider where, the as the here, the sentence court may apply a that his sentence is within the presumption of Id. contends because factors the in district the court commentary 2 is procedurally did not explicitly to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 5G1.3(c) (2011) for imposing a sentence on a defendant already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment. A district court need not engage in ritualistic incantation in order to establish its consideration of a legal issue. rules on It is sufficient if . . . the district court issues determination. that have been Consideration ultimate ruling. is fully implicit presented in the for court's United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995) (dealing with the district court s alleged failure to consider Guidelines policy statements defendant s supervised release). when revoking a The central issue at Moore s sentencing hearing was whether to impose a consecutive sentence; the issue was fully presented and argued. Therefore, we conclude that Moore s sentence is procedurally reasonable. Moore also contends that the district court did not provide sufficient reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence. We disagree. consecutive The district court explained that it believed a sentence was necessary to give effect to the punishment imposed for the crime that Moore had committed, which was separate from the sentence imposed as a result of his parole violation. Therefore, We we discern conclude no infirmity that Moore s in this sentence reasoning. is also substantively reasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion. 3 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4