US v. Ronnie Everett, No. 13-4735 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4735 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RONNIE VICTOR EVERETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (4:12-cr-00130-BR-1) Submitted: May 30, 2014 Decided: June 4, 2014 Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie Victor Everett pled guilty to three counts of distribution of cocaine base and one count of possession of a firearm by Everett a to convicted felon. concurrent The terms of district 188 court months on sentenced the three distribution counts, and 120 months on the firearm count, to run concurrently. district Everett appeals his sentence, contending that the court convictions controlled erred for in finding manufacturing, substance within that his selling, 1000 feet previous or of a state possessing park, and a for possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana, were not relevant conduct to his federal offenses of conviction. he contends, the court erred in failing to credit Thus, him the portion of the state sentence Everett had already served, and in declining to order that the federal sentence run concurrently with the undischarged portion of his state sentence. This court reviews sentences for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails appellate consideration procedural of both the reasonableness of the sentence. procedural reasonableness, court properly range, gave calculated the parties we and Id. at 51. consider whether the defendant s an opportunity 2 substantive In determining the advisory to district Guidelines argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. We have reviewed Everett s sentence in light of his claims and find Manual Guidelines sentence judgment. legal before no § to be procedural 1B1.3 reasonable error. (2013). and See U.S. Accordingly, affirm the Sentencing we find district his court s 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.
