United States v. Lewis , 321 F. App'x 225 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4303
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAMUEL JEROME LEWIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge; William W. Wilkins, Senior Circuit Judge, sitting by
designation. (8:07-cr-00954-GRA-1)
Submitted: October 22, 2008 Decided: December 1, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Jerome Lewis appeals his convictions and 130-
month sentence after pleading guilty to armed bank robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d) (2006), and use of a
firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). Counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether the district court erred in sentencing Lewis
to 130 months of imprisonment. Counsel concedes, however, that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although notified
of his right to do so, Lewis has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief. We affirm.
We review the sentence imposed by the district court
for reasonableness, using the abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); United
States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). An
appellate court is required to review the sentence for
procedural or substantive errors:
It must first ensure that the district court committed
no significant procedural error, such as failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a
sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing
to adequately explain the chosen sentence--including
an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines
range.
Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597.
2
If the appellate court concludes that the sentence is
“procedurally sound,” the court then considers the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. “Substantive
reasonableness review entails taking into account the ‘totality
of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from
the Guidelines range.’” Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473 (quoting Gall,
128 S. Ct. at 597). We presume that a sentence imposed within
the properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United
States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v.
United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding
presumption of reasonableness for within—Guidelines sentence).
Based on our review of the record, we find that
Lewis’s sentence is procedurally sound. The district court
committed no procedural errors. The court appropriately treated
the Guidelines as advisory and then considered the Guidelines
range and the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) before
imposing a 130-month prison term, a sentence within the
Guidelines range. We apply the presumption of reasonableness to
Lewis’s within-Guidelines sentence, and find that neither Lewis
nor the record suggests any information to rebut the
presumption. We therefore conclude that the sentence is
reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
3
We therefore affirm Lewis’s convictions and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Lewis, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Lewis 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 Lewis. 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