United States of America v. Dartanguia Antonious Lee, a/k/a Dartanguia Snoop, a/k/a Dartaguia Antonious Lee,…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-4479
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARTANGUIA ANTONIOUS LEE, a/k/a Dartanguia Snoop, a/k/a Dartaguia
Antonious Lee, a/k/a Dartaguia Antonius Lee, a/k/a Dartaguia Antonio Lee, a/k/a
Dartaguia Snookie, a/k/a Antonius Lee Dartaguia, a/k/a Dartaquia Antonuous Lee,
a/k/a Dartagnan Antious Lee, a/k/a Dartigan Lee, a/k/a Donte Antonius Lee, a/k/a
Dante Lee, a/k/a Dionte Antonius Delbridge, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Bully, a/k/a Donte
Lee, a/k/a Snookie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, Senior District Judge. (4:22-cr-00044-AWA-
DEM-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2026 Decided: June 24, 2026
Before HEYTENS and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Fernando Groene, FERNANDO GROENE, PC, Williamsburg, Virginia, for
Appellant. Peter Gail Osyf, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia,
James Reed Sawyers, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Dartanguia Antonious Lee appeals the district court’s order denying his letters that
it treated as post-judgment motions for reconsideration of his sentence. The Government
moves to dismiss this appeal. We deny the Government’s motion to dismiss and affirm.
Lee pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to making a false statement during the
purchase of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(a)(6), 924(a)(2), making a false
statement with respect to information required to be kept by a licensed firearms dealer, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(a)(1)(A), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1), and, on June 28, 2024, the district court
sentenced him to 204 months’ imprisonment and concurrent supervised release terms of 3
and 5 years. The district court did not specify whether Lee’s federal sentence was to run
concurrently with or consecutively to any future sentence imposed on state criminal
charges in North Carolina that counsel for the Government reported were pending. The
district court entered the criminal judgment on the docket on July 3, 2024, and Lee did not
appeal it. Following his federal sentencing, Lee was convicted following pleas made
pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), of drug and firearms offenses in
North Carolina state court and sentenced in October 2024 to 10 years, 5 months, and 25
days in prison.
In December 2024 and March 2025, Lee submitted letters to the district court,
requesting that it order that his federal sentence run concurrently with his state sentence.
The Government opposed Lee’s requests, arguing that the district court lacked a basis in
the law to order the already-imposed federal sentence to run concurrently with the state

-- 3 of 4 --

4
sentence. In response, Lee urged that the district court possessed the authority to order that
his federal sentence be served concurrently with his state sentence. Treating Lee’s letters
as motions for reconsideration, the district court denied them on August 14, 2025,
concluding that Lee’s federal sentence was “properly run consecutively to his state
sentence as a matter of law.”
Lee noted this appeal and challenges the denial ruling. The Government moves to
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and as barred by the appeal waiver in Lee’s plea
agreement. Lee filed a response opposing this motion, and the Government filed a reply.
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions and find no reversible
error. When the district court issued its order, it lacked the authority to modify Lee’s
sentence. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 819, 824 (2010); United States v.
Melvin, 105 F.4th 620, 623 & n.4 (4th Cir. 2024); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (listing
circumstances when district court may modify imposed sentence at later date, none of
which apply here). Accordingly, we deny the motion to dismiss the appeal and affirm the
district court’s order on this basis. United States v. Lee, No. 4:22-cr-00044-AWA-DEM-1
(E.D. Va. Aug. 14, 2025). 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

-- 4 of 4 --