United States v. Blackwell , 405 F. App'x 728 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4294
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CORNELIUS ANTONIO BLACKWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00187-WO-1)
Submitted: December 6, 2010 Decided: December 21, 2010
Before DAVIS and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, Randall Stuart Galyon,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cornelius Antonio Blackwell appeals the 120-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with
intent to distribute 114.6 grams of cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). On appeal, counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning whether Blackwell’s sentence was reasonable.
Blackwell was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but he has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.
The sole issue raised by counsel in the Anders brief
is whether the district court’s sentence was reasonable. In
reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the district
court did not commit any “significant procedural error,” such as
failing to properly calculate the applicable Guidelines range,
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or
failing to adequately explain the sentence. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carter, 564
F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Because counsel raises the
claimed error for the first time on appeal, we review for plain
error. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir.
2010); see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)
(detailing plain error standard). Our review of the record
2
leads us to conclude that the district court did not commit
reversible procedural error in imposing Blackwell’s sentence.
We next consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If the sentence imposed is within the
appropriate Guidelines range, we may consider it presumptively
reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,
216-17 (4th Cir. 2010). The presumption may be rebutted by a
showing “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445
F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
omitted). On review, Blackwell’s within-Guidelines sentence is
presumptively reasonable, and Blackwell has not rebutted that
presumption. Therefore, we conclude that the district court
committed no reversible substantive error in sentencing
Blackwell.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Blackwell’s conviction and 120-month
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Blackwell, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Blackwell requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to
3
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Blackwell. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4