United States v. Ed Carlton, Jr. , 588 F. App'x 286 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4382
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ED LEE CARLTON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:13-cr-00182-GRA-1)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, Andrew B. Moorman, Sr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ed Lee Carlton, Jr., appeals his forty-eight-month
sentence imposed after he pled guilty without a plea agreement
to one count of use of a communication device to facilitate a
felony, under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (2012). Carlton asserts that
the district court’s explanation for his sentence was
insufficient and that the district court procedurally erred when
it imposed his sentence without providing specific reasons for
rejecting his argument for a probationary sentence. Finding no
error, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
this court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, using an abuse
of discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires the
court to ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161
(4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include “failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range,
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any
deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
2
If, and only if, this court finds the sentence
procedurally reasonable can the court consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed. United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). The court presumes
that a sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable. See
United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 383 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 384 (2014). We conclude that Carlton’s
forty-eight-month sentence is reasonable.
In evaluating a district court’s explanation of a
selected sentence, this court has held that, although a district
court must consider the statutory factors and explain its
sentence, it need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or discuss
every single factor on the record. United States v. Rivera-
Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 105 (4th Cir. 2012). However, the
district court still “must make an individualized assessment
based on the facts presented[,]” and apply the “relevant
§ 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances of the case
before it.” Carter, 564 F.3d at 328 (quotation marks and
emphasis omitted).
The court must also “state in open court the
particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence” and “set
forth enough to satisfy” this court that it has “considered the
parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its]
own legal decisionmaking authority.” Id. (quotation marks
3
omitted). In other words, the reasons articulated by the
district court for a given sentence need not be “couched in the
precise language of § 3553(a)” as long as the reasons “can be
matched to a factor appropriate for consideration under that
statute and [are] clearly tied to [the defendant’s] particular
situation.” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 658 (4th
Cir. 2007).
“By drawing arguments from § 3553 for a sentence
different than the one ultimately imposed, [Carlton]
sufficiently alert[ed] the district court of its responsibility
to render an individualized explanation addressing those
arguments, and thus preserve[d] [his] claim.” United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we review
the district court’s explanation for Carlton’s sentence under
the abuse of discretion standard. See id. at 576.
Prior to imposing Carlton’s sentence, the district
court stated that it considered the Guidelines and the § 3553(a)
factors, specifically mentioning that it considered Carlton’s
criminal history and offense level, the seriousness of Carlton’s
offense, and the need to impose just punishment for his crime.
And although the district court found that Carlton admitted his
conduct and entered a timely guilty plea, it believed a forty-
eight-month sentence was necessary to deter Carlton from
criminal conduct and protect the public from such conduct.
4
Having expressly indicated that it considered the Guidelines and
the § 3553(a) factors, the district court undertook a sufficient
analysis in sentencing Carlton.
Although the district court did not explicitly address
counsel’s request for a probationary sentence, it is apparent
that the district court listened to counsel’s arguments, but
found that a Guidelines sentence was appropriate. We conclude
that the district court did not commit “significant procedural
error” in failing to more thoroughly explain Carlton’s sentence.
See Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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
5