US v. Allen Beasley, No. 12-4610 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4610 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALLEN GREY BEASLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00037-JPJ-PMS-1) Submitted: April 8, 2013 Decided: April 16, 2013 Before DAVIS, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael L. Dennis, GALUMBECK, DENNIS & KEGLEY, Tazewell, Virginia, for Appellant. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Allen Grey Beasley appeals the 240-month, downward departure sentence he received on his conviction of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2012). Although the Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal under United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995), as challenging only the extent of the substantial received, better we assistance believe read as that downward departure Beasley s appellate essentially challenging his that Beasley arguments are sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable, as measured against the sentence received by one of his codefendants who did not provide substantial assistance to the Government. We therefore deny the Government s motion. Nevertheless, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We discern no procedural error with the district court s computation of the Guidelines range or its weighing of the various applicable factors including the sentence received by Beasley s codefendant in determining the length of Beasley s sentence. see also See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), Guidelines Manual § 5G1.1(b). (e) (2006); U.S. Sentencing Nor has Beasley identified any reason to disturb the presumptive substantive reasonableness of 2 his below-Guidelines sentence. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012) (a sentence falling below the advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
