United States v. Alex Hamilton ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4035
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEX ALTERICK HAMILTON, a/k/a P,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (7:18-cr-00034-BO-1)
Submitted: October 24, 2019 Decided: November 14, 2019
Before KEENAN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Jude Darrow, LAW OFFICE OF MARY JUDE DARROW, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alex Alterick Hamilton pled guilty to distributing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012), and possessing a firearm in furtherance of, and using and
carrying a firearm during and in relation to, a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2012). The district court sentenced Hamilton to 262 months’
imprisonment. Hamilton’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether Hamilton’s sentence is reasonable. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review
entails consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Id. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court
properly calculated the defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an
opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If there are
no procedural errors, then we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. A sentence is presumptively
reasonable if it “is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range,” and this
“presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d
295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
2
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Hamilton’s sentence is procedurally
reasonable, and Hamilton fails to rebut the presumption that his sentence is substantively
reasonable. The district court properly calculated his Guidelines range and reasonably
determined that a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range was appropriate in this
case.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the criminal judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform Hamilton, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Hamilton 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 representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy
thereof was served on Hamilton.
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
3