US v. Reggie Wimbush, No. 12-4943 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4943 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. REGGIE LEE WIMBUSH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00267-MOC-1) Submitted: May 14, 2013 Decided: May 30, 2013 Before DAVIS, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henderson Hill, Executive Director, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal Defender, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Melissa L. Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Reggie Lee Wimbush appeals the district court s judgment imposing a 57-month sentence following his guilty plea to one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343 (West Supp. 2013); one count of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West Supp. 2013); one count of theft of public money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (2006); one count of identity fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7), (b)(1)(D) (2006); and one count of aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (b) (2006). Wimbush argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to address specific mitigating factors raised by counsel at the sentencing hearing. * We affirm. We review Wimbush s sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. U.S. 38, 46, significant consider explain the the 51 (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 The court procedural error, which § 3553(a) factors and chosen sentence. Id. * first reviews includes failing at 51. for failing to To to adequately avoid these Wimbush preserved this claim by drawing arguments from § 3553 for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010). 2 procedural errors, individualized the district assessment in court which it must applies make the an relevant § 3553(a) factors to the specific facts of the defendant s case. United States v. Carter, (emphasis omitted). 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) An extensive explanation of the sentence is not required as long as the appellate court is satisfied that the district court has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)) (brackets omitted). Contrary district court to Wimbush s clearly arguments, considered the we find § 3553(a) that the factors and arguments in mitigation and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating indication that district court that it considered arguments raised by both therefore conclude that must the parties Wimbush s only provide potentially about meritorious sentencing ). sentence is some We procedurally reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 3 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
