United States v. Alvin Pellum, Jr. ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4430
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ALVIN J. PELLUM, JR., a/k/a AJ,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00652-PMD-1)
Submitted: September 28, 2011 Decided: October 13, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Nick Bianchi, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alvin J. Pellum, Jr. pleaded guilty to felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
and 924(a)(2) (2006). The presentence investigation report
calculated Pellum’s sentencing range pursuant to the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2010) as 135 to 168 months. This
was lowered to 120 months, pursuant to the statutory maximum
term of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). Pellum received a
120-month sentence. Pellum now appeals, claiming that the
district court imposed a procedurally and substantively
unreasonable sentence because it failed to consider his
sentencing arguments and failed to provide an adequate
explanation for the sentence imposed. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). A sentence is procedurally reasonable where the
district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory
Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
sentencing factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the
parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.
at 49-50. The district court is not required to “robotically
tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.” United States v.
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). However, the
district court “must place on the record an ‘individualized
2
assessment’ based on the particular facts of the case before it.
This individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy,
but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case
at hand and adequate to permit ‘meaningful appellate review.’”
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (internal footnote omitted).
Upon review, we conclude that the district court provided an
adequate individualized assessment, taking into account
counsel’s arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence. Moreover,
the court did not impermissibly consider rehabilitation in
fashioning Pellum’s sentence. See Tapia v. United States, 131
S. Ct. 2382, 2392 (2011) (“A court commits no error by
discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or
the benefits of specific treatment or training programs.”). The
district court thus did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Pellum’s 120-month sentence. See United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review
for properly preserved procedural sentencing error); see also
Gall, 552 U.S. at 46.
We accordingly affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4