US v. Tito Coleman, No. 16-4301 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4301 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TITO A. COLEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cr-00005-JRS-1) Submitted: July 27, 2016 Decided: August 4, 2016 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Nia Ayanna Vidal, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Juan D. Mejia, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tito A. Coleman appeals his eight-month sentence after pleading guilty to driving a vehicle with a suspended license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13 (2012), assimilating Va. Code § 46.2-878. We Finding no error, we affirm. review substantive Coleman’s reasonableness discretion standard.” (2007). sentence “under for a both procedural deferential and abuse-of- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 We must ensure that the sentencing court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to consider the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors or not adequately explaining the sentence. Id. at 51. If there is no significant procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the [Sentencing] Guidelines range.” Id. Coleman first argues that the magistrate judge procedurally erred by not sufficiently explaining the sentence. sentencing thoroughly transcript reviewed the reveals that § 3553(a) the factors However, the magistrate and defense’s arguments before pronouncing sentence. judge considered the Coleman also claims that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, but the magistrate judge imposed a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range, and Coleman has not effectively rebutted the 2 presumption sentence. of reasonableness we afford a within-Guidelines See United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal 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.
