US v. Terrell Battle, No. 16-4156 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4156 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TERRELL BATTLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00165-FL-1) Submitted: October 20, 2016 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. KING, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 10, 2016 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terrell Battle pled guilty to two counts of mailing threatening communications to a federal official, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c) (2012), and was concurrent terms of 15 months in prison. sentenced to two Battle now appeals, claiming that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm. We review a sentence abuse-of-discretion standard.” U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “under a deferential See Gall v. United States, 552 When reviewing for substantive reasonableness, we “examine[] the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence . . . satisfied the standards set forth in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a).” United States Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). sentence is within the correctly calculated v. If the Sentencing Guidelines range, as it is here, we presume that the sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). This presumption is rebutted only if the defendant measured shows against the “that the sentence § 3553(a) factors.” is unreasonable United when States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 176 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 At Battle’s sentencing, the district court stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors, variance, which appeal. are presentence and report, Battle’s identical the Guidelines, arguments to those for a the downward arguments raised on The court exercised its “extremely broad discretion” to weigh the mitigating factors identified by Battle against the seriousness of the offenses and Battle’s criminal history. United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011). Ultimately, the court concluded that the mitigating factors warranted a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range rather than a downward variance. We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable and that Battle reasonableness Accordingly, dispense we we with failed to accord the affirm oral the argument rebut the presumption within-Guidelines district because court’s the sentence. judgment. facts of and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.
