Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 09-4828
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:08-cr-00667-GRA-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
September 9, 2010
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Tyrone Ricketts pleaded guilty to one count of
possession with intent to distribute and distribution of 5 grams
or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B) (2006), and was sentenced to 70 months imprisonment.
Ricketts
appeals
his
sentence.
Because
the
district
court
appeal,
Ricketts
challenges
only
the
procedural
to
outside
address
the
sentence,
his
advisory
whether
non-frivolous
Guidelines
inside,
request
range.
just
outside,
for
In
or
sentence
reviewing
any
significantly
reasonableness
of
the
abuse-of-discretion standard.
sentence
imposed
under
an
F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).
facts
presented,
that
is,
the
court
must
apply
the
in
order
to
permit
proper
appellate
review.
Id.
sentence
Guidelines,
than
district
that
judge
set
forth
should
in
the
address
advisory
the
partys
Id. at 330.
robotically
tick
through
3553(a)s
particularly
when
imposing
United
States
v.
Lynn,
592
every
within-Guidelines
F.3d
572,
576
(4th
subsection,
sentence.
Cir.
2010)
(quoting United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir.
2006)).
329.
In this case, after Ricketts pleaded guilty, a PreSentence
Report
(PSR)
Ricketts
had
offense
an
was
prepared.
level
of
Pursuant
21
and
to
the
criminal
PSR,
history
of
60
Ricketts
filed
months'
a
imprisonment.
sentencing
Prior
memorandum,
to
sentencing,
requesting
that
the
sentencing,
the
Government
recounted
the
the
Guidelines
calculation.
Immediately
after
this
agree
with
procedurally unreasonable.
Ricketts
that
his
sentence
is
cocaine
ratio
argument,
outside
or
and
even
the
the
district
permit
Guidelines
Ricketts
range,
court
to
did
argue
although
we
not
address
for
have
the
sentence
previously
to
appropriate.
Cir.
2008)
argue
for
whatever
sentence
they
deem
quotation
marks
omitted).
While
the
indication
that
the
district
court
considered
the
592
F.3d
at
585
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
considered
Guidelines
Rickettss
sentence,
and
arguments
the
district
in
favor
courts
of
below-
statement
of
below
(here,
the
Government)
5
bears
the
burden
of
demonstrating that the error was harmless, i.e. that it did not
have a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the
result.
cannot
say,
with
any
fair
assurance,
that
the
district
Id.
do
not,
of
course,
offer
any
view
on
the
substantive