United States v. Dartanguia Lee

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4479 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, USCA4 Appeal: 25-4479 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 2 of 4

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4479 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 3 of 4

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 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4479 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 4 of 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