US v. Dwight Carrington, No. 12-5049 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-5049 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DWIGHT ELLIS CARRINGTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00143-WO-1) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dwight Ellis Carrington appeals his conviction and sixty-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to giving false or fictitious violation of 18 statements U.S.C. to acquire § 922(a)(6) a firearm, (2006). On in appeal, Carrington s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. meritorious issues 738 for (1967), appeal stating but pro issues. se supplemental brief, there questioning district court committed sentencing error. a that raising are whether no the Carrington has filed additional sentencing The Government has declined to file a response brief. Following a thorough review of the record, we affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion States, U.S. 552 38, 41, 52 standard. (2007). We Gall first v. United examine the sentence for significant procedural error, including improper calculation of the Guidelines range, insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) explanation of the sentence imposed. announcing its sentence, the factors, and inadequate Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. court must conduct In an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). provide a comprehensive, detailed 2 opinion, so It need not long as its explanation is adequate to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority. United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). If we find a sentence is procedurally reasonable, we also must consider the substantive reasonableness sentence under the totality of the circumstances. U.S. at 51. than of the Gall, 552 A sentence must be sufficient, but not greater necessary to satisfy the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 111 (2007)). A within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable on appeal, and the defendant bears the burden to rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 2006) (internal quotation marks district court omitted). Counsel procedurally first erred a in arguments for § 3553(a) factors. failing whether to below-Guidelines However, Carrington s arguments that lengthy prior questions for a the adequately sentence court downward sentences had 3 the not respond or to his consider the expressly departure, deterred rejected recognizing him. In announcing its sentence, the court specifically addressed the nature of the offense characteristics as and possible Carrington s mitigating personal factors history but and ultimately concluded that a sentence of sixty months was necessary to deter future crimes, to promote respect for the law, and to protect the public. We conclude that this individualized assessment adequately addressed the § 3553(a) factors and counsel s arguments, and we discern no procedural error in the sentence. Moreover, while counsel questions whether the sentence unduly emphasized Carrington s criminal history and was greater than necessary to Carrington meet fails the to § 3553(a) rebut the factors, we conclude presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. that See Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 379. We also have reviewed Carrington s pro se supplemental brief but conclude that his arguments lack merit. Carrington asserts that the district court erred in basing Carrington s sentence abuse on his treatment attending. however. need to program Carrington s participate that he argument in has is a specific been belied substance prohibited by the from record, Although the court recommended Carrington for this treatment program, the sentencing transcript clearly indicates that the court did not base Carrington s sentence on the need for substance abuse treatment. Nor 4 does the record support Carrington s inaccurate assertion that information in his the sentence was presentence based on report. any While Carrington argues that the court impermissibly considered his alcohol use conclude and the fashioning related court a convictions appropriately sentence under 18 in sentencing considered U.S.C. we factors these him, in § 3553(a). Finally, insofar as Carrington challenges the court s refusal to depart downward from the Guidelines range, we lack authority to review this issue, understood as its the record authority to reveals that depart. the See court United properly States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 371 (4th Cir. 2008). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. requires that counsel inform Carrington, in This court writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If counsel Carrington believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Carrington. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 5 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 6
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.
