United States of America v. Christopher Lee Tuttle

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-4592
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LEE TUTTLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:24-cr-00108-TDS-1)
Submitted: September 18, 2025 Decided: September 22, 2025
Before THACKER and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Stacey D. Rubain, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mary Ann Courtney, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Lee Tuttle pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to bank
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The district court sentenced Tuttle within his
Sentencing Guidelines range to 156 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Tuttle’s counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Tuttle’s sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. Specifically, counsel contends that Tuttle’s
sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court disproportionately
weighed Tuttle’s previous 156-month sentence for bank robbery, and the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors of affording adequate deterrence and the need to provide just punishment.
Although informed of his right to do so, Tuttle has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
The Government has declined to file a response. We affirm.
“We review the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) using an
abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020).
We must first “evaluate procedural reasonableness, determining whether the district court
committed any procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range,
failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.” Id. (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). If “the district court
has not committed procedural error,” we then assess the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. Id. Substantive reasonableness review “takes into account the totality of the
circumstances to determine whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in
concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” Id.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
(internal quotation marks omitted). “Any sentence that is within or below a properly
calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.” United States v.
Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by
showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors.” Id.
With respect to the procedural reasonableness of Tuttle’s sentence, the district court
correctly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the parties’ arguments and Tuttle’s
individualized circumstances, offered Tuttle the opportunity to allocute, and explained why
the chosen sentence was appropriate. We conclude that Tuttle’s sentence is procedurally
reasonable.
Turning to substantive reasonableness, the district court did not improperly weigh
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in imposing Tuttle’s within-Guidelines range sentence.
The district court expressed concern that Tuttle had only been out of prison for a matter of
weeks since age 19 and that his criminal history substantially underrepresented his
likelihood of committing crimes. While the district court distinguished the instant offense
from Tuttle’s prior robbery offense, noting the less serious conduct involved in the instant
robbery, the court found that the previous 156-month sentence on the prior robbery
conviction had not deterred Tuttle from committing yet another bank robbery. Thus, the
court reasoned that it was not appropriate to impose anything less than 156 months’
imprisonment. Additionally, in imposing its sentence, the court expressly considered the
need to promote respect for the law and to provide a just punishment for Tuttle’s offense.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
We thus conclude that Tuttle fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his
within-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Tuttle, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Tuttle requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Tuttle.
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 --