United States v. Noel Robinson , 491 F. App'x 399 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6927
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NOEL ROBINSON, a/k/a Bongo, a/k/a Mr. B,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:10-cr-00043-HMH-2)
Submitted: December 6, 2012 Decided: December 13, 2012
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hannah Rogers Metcalfe, METCALFE & ATKINSON, LLC, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Noel Robinson pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine, cocaine, and cocaine base (“crack”), in
violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (West
Supp. 2012), and was sentenced to 139 months’ imprisonment. In
our prior consideration of this case, we affirmed Robinson’s
conviction but remanded for resentencing. United States v.
Robinson, 462 F. App’x 418 (4th Cir. 2012) (No. 11-4332). On
remand, Robinson was again sentenced to 139 months’
imprisonment. Robinson’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal. Robinson was notified of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but, despite being
granted an extension of time to do so, he did not file a brief.
The Government has elected not to file a brief. We affirm
Robinson’s sentence.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying the
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). This requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id.;
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). After
determining whether the district court correctly calculated the
advisory Guidelines range, we examine whether the court
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed the
2
arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained
the selected sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575-76; United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Although
the district court must set forth sufficient reasons for its
selected sentence, application of a within-Guidelines sentence
“will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). If the sentence is
free of significant procedural error, we review the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575; United
States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
We have reviewed the record and determined that
Robinson’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. We further
conclude that Robinson’s sentence is substantively reasonable.
United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008)
(“[A] sentence located within a correctly calculated
[G]uidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”). After a
complete review of the record pursuant to Anders, we conclude
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Robinson’s sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Robinson, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Robinson requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
3
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Robinson.
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