United States v. Tony Rochelle, Jr. , 683 F. App'x 222 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4647
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TONY LAMONT ROCHELLE, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:16-cr-00146-CCE-1)
Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 3, 2017
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Ira Knight, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tony Lamont Rochelle, Jr., pled guilty to carjacking, 18
U.S.C. § 2119 (2012), and brandishing a firearm during a crime
of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012). He appeals
his resulting 130-month sentence. On appeal, Rochelle’s counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal,
but questioning whether the district court imposed an
unreasonable sentence by denying a downward variance. Rochelle
was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief
but has not done so. The Government has declined to file a
response brief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review Rochelle’s sentence for reasonableness, applying
“a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). We first ensure that the court
“committed no significant procedural error,” such as improper
calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines, insufficient
consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and
inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed. United States
v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks omitted). If we find the sentence procedurally
reasonable, we also review its substantive reasonableness under
“the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We
presume that a within-Guidelines sentence is substantively
2
reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th
Cir. 2014). Rochelle bears the burden to rebut this presumption
“by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.Our review of the record indicates that Rochelle’s sentence
is reasonable. The court properly calculated the applicable
Sentencing Guidelines range, considered the parties’ sentencing
arguments, and provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence
it imposed, expressly grounded in various § 3553(a) factors.
The court specifically considered Rochelle’s request for a
downward variance, but reasonably declined to sentence him below
the Guidelines range, concluding that such a reduction was
unwarranted based on the seriousness of the offense, the benefit
Rochelle received from the plea bargaining process, his
significant criminal record at a very young age, and a
substantial need to protect the public. Rochelle fails to rebut
the presumption of substantive reasonableness accorded his
within-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Rochelle, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Rochelle requests that a petition be filed,
3
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 Rochelle.
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