United States v. Chatman , 340 F. App'x 922 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4061
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT RAMON CHATMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge (1:05-cr-00384-JAB-2)
Submitted: July 31, 2009 Decided: August 18, 2009
Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Ramon Chatman appeals from the 120-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute
fifty grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a
detectable amount of cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Chatman’s 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 Chatman’s sentence was reasonable. Chatman has not
filed a pro se brief, although he was informed of his right to
do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Consistent with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(2005), the district court is required to follow a multi-step
process at sentencing. First, it must calculate the proper
sentencing range prescribed by the Guidelines. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007); see also
United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 260 (4th Cir. 2008). It
must then consider that range in light of the parties’ arguments
regarding the appropriate sentence and the factors set out in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), before imposing its sentence. Gall,
128 S. Ct. at 596; see also Abu Ali, 528 F.3d at 260.
We review the district court’s sentence for abuse of
discretion. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 591. First, we must ensure the
2
district court did not commit any “significant procedural
error,” such as failing to properly calculate the advisory
Guidelines sentence, consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
or adequately explain the sentence. Id. at 597. Once we have
determined there is no procedural error, we must consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account
the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If
the sentence imposed is within the appropriate Guidelines range,
we consider it on appeal to be presumptively reasonable. United
States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). 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 and citation omitted).
Our review of the record reveals that the district
court considered the Guidelines as advisory and properly
calculated Chatman’s applicable Guidelines range, taking into
account the ten-year statutory mandatory minimum sentence.
Furthermore, Chatman’s within-Guidelines sentence is
presumptively reasonable on appeal and Chatman has not rebutted
that presumption. Critically, because the Government did not
move for a downward departure to reflect substantial assistance,
the district court had no authority to depart below the
mandatory minimum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e); Melendez v. United
3
States, 518 U.S. 120, 125-26 (1996). Therefore, we find that
the district court committed no reversible error in sentencing
Chatman to 120 months’ imprisonment.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Chatman’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Chatman, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Chatman 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 withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Chatman. 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