US v. Julius Nesbitt, No. 13-4997 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4997 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JULIUS NESBITT, a/k/a Butch, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:08-cr-01153-DCN-1) Submitted: September 17, 2014 Before DUNCAN and Circuit Judge. KEENAN, Circuit Decided: Judges, October 16, 2014 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Peter T. Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Julius Nesbitt of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012) ( Count One ); two counts of possession oxycodone, in with intent violation to of distribute 21 U.S.C. § and distribution 841(a)(1), of (b)(1)(C) (2012) ( Count Two and Count Three ); one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012) ( Count Five ); and one count of causing the Coast Guard to attempt to save a life and property when no help was needed, in violation of 14 U.S.C. § 88(c) (2012) ( Count Six ). The district court sentenced Nesbitt to 151 months imprisonment sentences on of Counts 120 seventy-two 151 months months sentence of One, Two, imprisonment imprisonment months and on Three, on Count imprisonment. and concurrent Count Six, See for United Nesbitt, 464 F. App x 89, 90 (4th Cir. 2012). Five a and total States v. On appeal, this court vacated the criminal judgment in part and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court failed to provide an adequate explanation for its chosen sentence . At resentencing, the district court identical sentence. 2 sentenced Id. at 91-92. Nesbitt to an This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district court under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 45 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578-79 (4th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard of review applicable when defendant properly preserves a claim of sentencing error arguments from [18 U.S.C.] different than the one in court must begin by § district 3553 ultimately reviewing the court [(2012)] for imposed ). sentence [b]y a The for drawing sentence appellate significant procedural error, including failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence[.] When, Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. as here, the district court imposes a within-Guidelines sentence, the district court may provide a less extensive, while still individualized, explanation. United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009). That explanation, however, must be sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review such that the appellate court need not guess at the district court s rationale[.] United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 329-30 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). On appeal, Nesbitt challenges only the adequacy of the district court s explanation of its sentence. After reviewing the record, we conclude the district court adequately explained the chosen sentence. 3 Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decision making 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.
