United States v. Darnell Middleton ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4439
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARNELL TORENSE MIDDLETON, a/k/a Tyrone Jeraldo Middleton,
a/k/a Snoop,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (2:10-cr-00024-SB-1)
Submitted: January 30, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darnell Torense Middleton appeals the 128-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with
intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and (b)(1)(D) (West 1999 & Supp. 2011)
(Count One); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii)
(2006) (Count Two), and possession of a stolen firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j) and 924(a) (2006) (Count
Three). Counsel for Middleton filed a brief in this court in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning the reasonableness of Middleton’s sentence and
whether the district court complied with Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11. Counsel states, however, that he has
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Middleton received
notice of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did
not file one. The Government declined to file a brief. Because
we find no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.
Because Middleton did not move in the district court
to withdraw his guilty plea, the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for
plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th
Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [Middleton] must show
that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the
error affected his substantial rights.” United States v.
2
Muhammed, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Here, the record
confirms that the district court fully complied with the
requirements of Rule 11.
We review a sentence imposed by a district court under
a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d
572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010). We begin by reviewing the sentence
for significant procedural error, including such errors as
“failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] 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. If
there are no procedural errors, we then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality
of the circumstances. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597
F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
“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) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (emphasis omitted).
Accordingly, a sentencing court must apply the relevant §
3553(a) factors to the particular facts presented and must
3
“‘state in open court’” the particular reasons that support its
chosen sentence. Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(c) (West 2000
& Supp. 2010)). The court’s explanation need not be exhaustive;
it must be “sufficient ‘to satisfy the appellate court that the
district court has considered the parties’ arguments and has a
reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking
authority.’” United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th
Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356
(2007)) (alterations omitted).
We conclude that the sentence imposed by the district
court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The
district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range and
understood that it was advisory, considered the § 3553(a)
factors, and adequately explained the sentence. Thus, we
conclude that the court imposed a reasonable sentence under the
circumstances.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Middleton, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Middleton 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
4
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Middleton. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5