United States v. Taylor , 404 F. App'x 788 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4650
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KENNY LASALLE TAYLOR,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00037-NCT-1)
Submitted: November 22, 2010 Decided: December 14, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Michael
Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenny Lasalle Taylor appeals the 190-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(d) (2006), and to discharging a firearm during and in
relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (2006). Counsel for Taylor filed a brief in
this court in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal, but questioning whether the district court imposed an
unduly harsh sentence. Taylor did not file a pro se
supplemental brief, although he was informed of his right to do
so.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). This review requires appellate consideration of
both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a
sentence. Id. This court must assess whether the district
court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range,
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any
arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained
the selected sentence. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576
(4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized explanation must accompany
every sentence.” (emphasis omitted)); United States v. Carter,
2
564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (same). In addition, this
court presumes on appeal that a sentence within a properly
determined advisory Guidelines range is substantively
reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.
2007).
We conclude that Taylor’s sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court
properly calculated Taylor’s Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,
473 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the district court based its
sentence on its individualized assessment of the facts of the
case. See Carter, 564 F.3d at 328. Lastly, Taylor has not
rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is
reasonable. Thus, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore deny counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, and
affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires
that counsel inform Taylor, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Taylor requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
3
in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Taylor.
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
4