US v. Darl Vanmeter, No. 12-4696 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4696 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARL E. VANMETER, f/k/a Darl E. VanMeter, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:12-cr-00012-JPB-JSK-1) Submitted: February 15, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, West Virginia; L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darl E. Vanmeter pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, materials used to in aiding the and abetting manufacture of the possession of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6), (d)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced Vanmeter below his Guidelines range to ninetysix months imprisonment. On appeal, Vanmeter challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, contending that it is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), particularly rehabilitation. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. This whether court inside, reviews just the outside, under a district or court s significantly deferential sentence, outside Guidelines range[,] standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). the abuse-of-discretion When reviewing a sentence for substantive reasonableness, this court examines the totality of the circumstances, including extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. the Id. at 51. We must be satisfied that the district court considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for its decision. United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that Vanmeter s ninety-six-month, belowGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. 2 The district court demonstrated that it considered Vanmeter s arguments for a thirty-six-month sentence, as well as the relevant § 3553(a) factors, and had a reasoned basis for its sentencing decision. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3