Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Vendai Irick, 4th Cir. (2015)
United States v. Vendai Irick, 4th Cir. (2015)
United States v. Vendai Irick, 4th Cir. (2015)
No. 14-4390
No. 14-4397
No. 14-4407
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr.,
Senior
District
Judge.
(1:13-cr-00339-NCT-1;
1:13-cr-00339-NCT-3; 1:13-cr-00339-NCT-2)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Vendai
Irick,
Rodney
Byrd,
and
Denzel
Shivers
pleaded
U.S.C.
1951(a)
(2012).
The
district
court
sentenced
the
appellants
contend
unreasonable sentences.
that
the
district
court
All
imposed
We affirm.
entitled
to
an
offense
level
reduction
for
playing
2011).
error
(1)
occurred,
substantial rights.
(2)
was
plain,
and
(3)
affected
his
732 (1993).
The Sentencing Guidelines provide graduated offense level
reductions when a defendant plays a mitigating role in the
charged offense.
(2013).
USSG 3B1.2(a).
USSG 3B1.2(b).
If the
reduction
substantially
applies
less
3B1.2 n.3(A).
culpable
USSG 3B1.2(c).
to
any
than
his
defendant
who
codefendants.
is
USSG
cash
and
goods
worth
over
$400,000hardly
[an]
insubstantial amount.
Appellants next argue that the district court abused its
discretion
by
imposing
unreasonable
sentences.
See
Gall
v.
the
district
court
4
committed
no
significant
its
explanation,
the
district
court
need
not
make
an
presented.
individualized
Gall,
552
assessment
U.S.
at
50.
based
on
the
facts
This
individualized
permit
meaningful
appellate
review.
United
States
v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
We
conclude
that
procedural error.
the
district
court
committed
no
such
offense and the need to protect the public and deter others from
such conduct, against appellants youth, immaturity, and drug
use.
appellants,
individual
it
also
conduct.
clearly
differentiated
Moreover,
this
between
grouping
was
their
hardly
considering
the
totality
of
the
circumstances.
but
necessary,
not
greater
sentencing.
18
than
U.S.C.
to
satisfy
3553(a).
the
properly
purposes
of
calculated,
appellant
bears
the
burden
to
rebut
the
presumption
by
F.3d
375,
379
(4th
Cir.
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
Appellants
Guidelines
effectively
sentences
ranges.
balanced
fell
As
explained
the
serious,
within
above,
their
the
premeditated,
respective
district
and
court
dangerous
Indeed,
he
as
played
just
as
significant
role
in
the
crime
his
codefendants.
We similarly find nothing to support appellants assertion
that the district court improperly enhanced their sentences due
6
conduct
in
analyzing
history
and
the
the
district
negative
courts
collateral
failure
consequences
to
explicitly
that
appellants
Accordingly,
we
conclude
that
the
district
court
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED