Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    United States v. Nomar, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Louis Nomar appealed his 77-month sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and escape, arguing it was unreasonable. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentence, finding that it was within the advisory guidelines range of 70-87 months and did not exceed statutory maximums. 3) The appellate court concluded that Nomar failed to rebut the presumption that a sentence within guidelines range is reasonable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Nomar, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views3 pages
    1) Louis Nomar appealed his 77-month sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and escape, arguing it was unreasonable. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentence, finding that it was within the advisory guidelines range of 70-87 months and did not exceed statutory maximums. 3) The appellate court concluded that Nomar failed to rebut the presumption that a sentence within guidelines range is reasonable.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-12-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-4608

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Louis Nomar appealed his 77-month sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and escape, arguing it was unreasonable. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentence, finding that it was within the advisory guidelines range of 70-87 months and did not exceed statutory maximums. 3) The appellate court concluded that Nomar failed to rebut the presumption that a sentence within guidelines range is reasonable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    12 views3 pages

    United States v. Nomar, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Louis Nomar appealed his 77-month sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and escape, arguing it was unreasonable. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentence, finding that it was within the advisory guidelines range of 70-87 months and did not exceed statutory maximums. 3) The appellate court concluded that Nomar failed to rebut the presumption that a sentence within guidelines range is reasonable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-4608

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    LOUIS N. NOMAR,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
    District Judge. (2:02-cr-00091)

    Submitted:

    November 17, 2006

    Decided:

    December 8, 2006

    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,


    Appellate Counsel, Edward H. Weis, Assistant Federal Public
    Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
    Charles T.
    Miller, United States Attorney, L. Anna Forbes, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Louis N. Nomar appeals the seventy-seven month sentence
    imposed by the district court on resentencing in light of United
    States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), for his convictions of
    conspiracy to commit wire fraud via the internet, and escape.

    We

    affirm.
    Nomar contends that his sentence is unreasonable because
    his offenses were not violent, there was no evidence that anyone
    was injured by his conduct, few victims have requested restitution,
    no one was harmed in his escape, and, in his view, the disparity
    between his seventy-seven-month sentence and co-defendant Yolanda
    Monroes fifteen-month sentence is not justified.

    He argues that

    a sentence of time served would be sufficient but not greater than


    necessary to comply with the factors set out in 18 U.S.C.A.
    3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006).
    In resentencing Nomar after Booker, the district court
    considered the advisory sentencing guidelines range and the factors
    set forth in 3553(a).

    See United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d

    424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006).

    The

    sentence imposed by the district court is within the advisory


    guideline range of 70-87 months.

    The court imposed a term of sixty

    months for the fraud count and a consecutive seventeen months for
    the escape count, which did not exceed the statutory maximum of
    five years for each count. [A] sentence within the proper advisory

    - 2 -

    Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.


    Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006).

    United States v.
    We have carefully

    considered Nomars arguments on appeal and conclude that he has


    failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.
    We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district
    court.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 3 -

    You might also like