US v. Robert Tinsley, No. 13-4197 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4197 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ROBERT NATHANIEL TINSLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00020-GEC-BWC-1) Submitted: October 16, 2013 Decided: October 29, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Lloyd Snook, III, SNOOK & HAUGHEY, P.C., Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM Robert Nathaniel Tinsley pled guilty without a plea agreement to distribution of cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute over twenty-eight grams of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). each count; the He was sentenced to 138 months on sentences run concurrently. Tinsley now appeals, arguing that his sentence is unreasonable. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. As part of this review, we must consider whether the district court adequately explained the selected sentence. Id. In this regard, the district court must place on the record an individualized facts of the case. assessment based on the particular United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 321, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Tinsley s Guidelines range was 262-327 months. In imposing sentence, the district court granted the Government s substantial assistance motion. than the greater 150-month than the Tinsley requested. sentence sentence of The chosen sentence was less the no Government more than argued 115 for months but that The court stated that it considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors when imposing sentence. Among the factors discussed by the court in sentencing Tinsley were 2 his need for drug treatment, his age, the need to deter similar conduct by others, and Tinsley s extensive criminal history. Tinsley claims that his sentence is unreasonable because the court focused too heavily on his criminal record when discussing the need to promote respect for the law. disagree. The weight given to any § 3553(a) factor lies within the discretion of the trial court. United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1204 (11th Cir. 2011). Court We observed that the sentencing In Gall, the Supreme court did not commit reversible error simply because it attached great[er] weight to one sentencing factor. 56-57. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. at However, unjustified reliance upon any one . . . factor is a symptom of an unreasonable sentence warranting reversal if the court detriment focused of all of single-mindedly the other on [that sentencing factor] to factors. the United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006). Our review of Tinsley s sentencing proceeding reveals that the district court did not rely unjustifiably on Tinsley s record. factor Rather, the court simply, in its discretion, gave that greater weight than it did other factors such as Tinsley s age, his need for drug treatment, and the need to deter similar conduct by others. We conclude that the sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable, and we affirm. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
