UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Rollin Anthony OWENS, Jr., Defendant - Appellant.
Decided: April 09, 2019
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew G.T. Martin, United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Rollin Anthony Owens, Jr., pled guilty to one count of kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) (2012), and two counts of kidnapping a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1), (g), 3559(f)(2) (2012). The district court found Owens’ Sentencing Guidelines range to be 300 to 327 months’ imprisonment, and sentenced Owens to 380 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Owens argues that his upward-variant sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Ketter, 908 F.3d 61, 67 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing a claim of substantive unreasonableness, we must “take into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). In considering the extent of the variance, however, we “must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance,” id., because “district courts have extremely broad discretion when determining the weight to be given each” § 3553(a) factor, United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011).
Here, the district court “properly considered and fully explained its decision pursuant to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),” including the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for adequate deterrence, and the need to protect the public from further crimes. United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 367 (4th Cir. 2011). The court also considered and explained its rejection of Owens’ arguments for a lesser sentence. See United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 744-45 (4th Cir. 2019). We therefore discern no abuse of discretion.
We affirm Owens’ sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.