Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
No. 14-4744
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:13-cr-00357-RWT-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Neil Sampson pled guilty to conspiracy to interfere
with interstate commerce by robbery, interference with commerce
by
robbery,
violence.
and
He
brandishing
appeals,
contends
firearm
asserting
that
during
his
crime
upward
of
variance
We affirm.
that
his
sentence
was
procedurally
and
did
sentence
with
not;
and
details
erroneously
about
considered
by
the
procedural
and
substantive
discretion standard.
(2007).
supported
Sampsons
Guidelines.
We
offenses
review
reasonableness
its
under
variance
that
were
sentence
an
abuse
for
of
in
prison;
his
an
Guidelines range.
Id.
of
significant
explanation
for
any
deviation
from
the
procedural
error,
we
then
consider
the
United States v.
and
appellate
explanation
States v.
courts
supporting
McClung,
483
apply
greater
substantial
F.3d
273,
277
scrutiny
variance,
(4th
Cir.
to
see
an
United
2007).
the
sufficient.
district
courts
variance
explanation
was
detail
discussion
requirement.
of
in
its
Sampsons
explanation,
crime
and
the
courts
background
lengthy
met
that
the
crime,
the
court
factors.
For
instance,
deterrence
and
protection
also
the
considered
court
of
other
the
considered
public.
statutory
the
The
need
court
for
also
the
court
explicitly
referenced
each
of
the
beyond
behavior
most
and
specifically
determining
needed
discuss
factor.
to
by
lasting
injuries
pointed
to
that
be
robberies
his
Sampsons
to
age,
the
Sampsons
criminal
deterred.
involving
the
the
court
victims.
unusual
behavior
While
extremely
was
court
was
violent
The
court
background
in
unpredictable
and
did
clearly
not
explicitly
aware
of
that
sentence, noting that it was too far away from the statutory
maximum given the circumstances of the crime.
Accordingly, the
outside
deference.
the
Id.
Guidelines
range
are
still
Sentences that
entitled
to
due
to
its
decision
respect
to
the
extent
range.
2010).
more
weight
to
the
to
of
impose
the
such
divergence
aggravating
factors
sentence
from
and
the
decide
and
with
sentencing
that
the
the
court
its
obligations
to
impose
The court
were
numerous
uncounted
convictions
and
many
dismissed
The
victim
sustaining
serious
bodily
injury,
physical
court
did
not
give
excessive
weight
any
single
se supplemental brief.
See
United States v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 569 n.1 (4th Cir.
2011) (denying motion to file pro se supplemental brief because
the defendant was represented by counsel).
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
We dispense with
contentions
this
court
are
and
AFFIRMED