UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4753

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DARIEL TYREE PITTMAN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

District Judge. (5:07-cr-00308-D-1) 

Submitted: June 9, 2009 Decided: July 2, 2009 

Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellant. George 

E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Ethan A. Ontjes, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 A federal grand jury indicted Dariel Tyree Pittman for 

being a felon in possession of a firearm on April 25, 2007 

(Count 1), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006); 

obstructing interstate commerce by robbery and aiding and 

abetting (Count 2), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951 (2006); 

carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and aiding 

and abetting (Count 3), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 18 

U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2009); and being a felon in 

possession of a firearm and aiding and abetting on June 19, 2007 

(Count 4), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(g)(1). Pittman 

pleaded guilty to Counts 2 and 3 pursuant to a plea agreement in 

exchange for the Government dismissing Counts 1 and 4. The 

district court sentenced Pittman to 162 months of imprisonment 

for Count 2 to be served consecutively with eighty-four months 

of imprisonment for Count 3. Pittman now appeals his sentence, 

arguing that the district court erred in upwardly departing from 

the advisory guidelines range. Finding no error, we affirm. 

 This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, 

applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also

United States v. Seay, 553 F.3d 732, 742 (4th Cir. 2009). In so 

doing, the court first examines the sentence for “significant 

procedural error,” including: “‘failing to calculate (or 

2 
3 

improperly calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the 

[g]uidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] 

§ 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on 

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the 

chosen sentence . . . .’” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If there 

are no significant procedural errors, the court “‘consider[s] 

the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.’” 

United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.) (quoting 

Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008). 

 Pittman argues that the district court abused its 

discretion in upwardly departing from the advisory guidelines 

range to reflect the conduct in the dismissed charges, Counts 1 

and 4. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.21 (2007). 

In light of the facts of this case and the district court’s 

thorough and meaningful articulation of its consideration of the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and the bases for departure, 

we find the district court’s decision to depart, and the extent 

of the departure, reasonable. 

 Accordingly, we 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