United States v. Gibbs, 042919 FED4, 18-4365

Docket Nº:18-4365
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GEORGE TERRELL GIBBS, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:Raymond C. Tarlton, Joseph Gilberts, TARLTON POLK, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Adam F. Hulbig, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh...
Judge Panel:Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Case Date:April 29, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GEORGE TERRELL GIBBS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-4365

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

April 29, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: April 25, 2019

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:17-cr-00338-FL-2)

Raymond C. Tarlton, Joseph Gilberts, TARLTON POLK, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Adam F. Hulbig, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM.

George Terrell Gibbs appeals his 57-month sentence imposed after pleading guilty, without a plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2012), and six counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2012). On appeal, Gibbs' sole contention is that the district court improperly applied a two-level sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with the offense, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B1.1(b)(15) (2016). We affirm.

"Although the [S]entencing [G]uidelines are only advisory, improper calculation of a [G]uideline range constitutes significant procedural error, making the sentence procedurally unreasonable and subject to being vacated." United States v. Hargrove, 701 F.3d 156, 161 (4th Cir. 2012). "In assessing whether a district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, including its application of any sentencing enhancements, we review the district court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error." United States v. Fluker, 891 F.3d 541, 547 (4th Cir. 2018) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

In pertinent part, USSG § 2B1.1(b)(15) provides for a two-level...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP