US v. Zachary Garrett, No. 15-4338 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4338 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ZACHARY EDWARD GARRETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00456-CCE-1) Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Eric L. Iverson, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Zachary Edward Garrett challenges the reasonableness of the 138-month sentence imposed by the district court following his conviction, pursuant pornography. In to a guilty imposing the plea, for sentence, receipt child district the of court departed downward two levels from the appropriately calculated Guidelines range of 151 to 188 months and imposed a sentence in the middle of the revised Guidelines range. We affirm. We “review all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” 38, 41 (2007). procedural Where, as here, the defendant does not assert sentencing substantive Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. error, reasonableness we of turn the totality of the circumstances.” our attention sentence, Id. at 51. to considering the “the “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively can only [substantively] be unreasonable rebutted when [(2012)] factors.” (4th Cir.) (2014). by measured reasonable. showing against Such that the 18 a the presumption sentence U.S.C. § is 3553(a) United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (citation omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 We conclude that Garrett has not met this burden. Garrett contends that the sentence imposed is greater than necessary to meet the goals of the sentencing factors, noting 2 that the court stated that Garrett’s history and characteristics and the need to protect the public weighed in favor of a shorter sentence. § However, the court carefully considered the remaining 3553(a) factors seriousness conclude and of the offense the district that concluded that and the longer sentence. We adequately explained its warranted court a the nature reasons for the sentence imposed and that the below-Guidelines range sentence imposed is not unreasonable and not an abuse of discretion. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; Louthian, 756 F.3d at 306 (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to a sentence imposed within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines range). We dispense therefore with contentions are oral affirm Garrett’s argument adequately 138-month because presented in the the sentence. facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.
