United States v. Malcolm Green , 684 F. App'x 300 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4347
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MALCOLM XAVIER GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 16-4468
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDRE ANTOINE WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:15-cr-00526-RDB-2; 1:15-cr-00526-RDB-1)
Submitted: March 28, 2017 Decided: April 5, 2017
Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ruth Vernet, Rockville, Maryland; James Wyda, Federal Public
Defender, Meghan Skelton, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellants. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Malcolm Xavier Green and Andre Antoine Walker appeal their
convictions and sentences following their guilty pleas for
conspiracy to commit bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 371 (2012), bank robbery and armed bank robbery, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(a), (d) (2012), and using, carrying, and
brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in
violation * of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012). We
affirm.
Green and Walker challenge their firearm convictions on the
basis that armed bank robbery does not qualify as a crime of
violence. However, we recently addressed this issue in United
States v. McNeal, 818 F.3d 141 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S.
Ct. 164 (2016), holding that armed bank robbery is, in fact, a
crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) (2012). Id. at
157. Thus, we reject this claim.
Green and Walker also contend that their sentences were
procedurally unreasonable because the district court ignored
their nonfrivolous arguments for lighter sentences. We review a
sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52
*
Both Appellants preserved the right to appeal this issue
with conditional guilty pleas. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2).
3
(2007). “When rendering a sentence, the district court must
make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented,”
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009)
(emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted), and “must
adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful
appellate review and to promote the perception of fair
sentencing.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. An extensive explanation is
not required as long as we are satisfied “that the district
court has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned
basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.”
United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010)
(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).
Our review of the sentencing hearings confirms that the
district court properly considered the arguments presented by
Green and Walker. The court balanced evidence of their
backgrounds and personal characteristics against the serious
danger posed by a crime spree in which Green and Walker
committed four bank robberies in less than one month. We
therefore find no abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district court.
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