United States v. Kendrick Sellers , 516 F. App'x 240 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4761
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENDRICK MALIK SELLERS, a/k/a Drop,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:11-cr-02345-TLW-1)
Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brown W. Johnson, CLARKE, JOHNSON, PETERSON & MCLEAN, PA,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina; Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kendrick Malik Sellers pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute a quantity of powder and crack cocaine and was
sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment. He appeals. Sellers’
attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California in which he asserts that there are no meritorious
issues for appeal but questions whether Sellers’ sentence was
reasonable. Although advised of his right to file a
supplemental pro se brief, Sellers has not done so. Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review Sellers’ sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. We assess whether the
district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines
range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006), analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49–50; see
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir. 2010). If
there is no procedural error, we review the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the
circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its
2
discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied
the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v.
Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If the
sentence is within the Guidelines range, we apply a presumption
of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346–56
(2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-
guidelines sentence).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that the sentence is both procedurally and substantively
reasonable. Moreover, Sellers has failed to overcome the
presumption of reasonableness we accord his within-Guidelines
sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Sellers’ conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Sellers, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Sellers 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 Sellers.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4