United States v. Sampson , 424 F. App'x 257 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4197
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT MOORE SAMPSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00085-MR-3)
Submitted: March 29, 2011 Decided: April 22, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
S. Frederick Winiker, III, WINIKER LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Moore Sampson pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). He was
sentenced to sixty-five months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed
a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal
but questioning whether the sentence is reasonable. Sampson has
filed a pro se supplemental brief, emphasizing the mitigating
factors supporting a lesser sentence. Finding no error, we
affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v.
Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). This review requires
appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In
determining the procedural reasonableness of a sentence, we
consider whether the district court properly calculated the
defendant’s 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.
Id. “Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above,
below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on the
2
record an individualized assessment based on the particular
facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). If
the sentence is procedurally sound, this court next assesses the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “taking into account
the ‘totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any
variance from the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Pauley,
511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at
51).
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed
Sampson’s sentence and conclude that the district court properly
calculated Sampson’s sentencing range under the advisory
Guidelines as 87-108 months. The district court also allowed
counsel to argue that the § 3553(a) factors warranted a sentence
of time served and afforded Sampson an opportunity to allocute.
See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 581 (4th Cir. 2010).
The district court articulately explained before imposing
sentence that other factors, particularly the need to deter
others, outweighed Sampson’s favorable offender characteristics.
See Carter, 564 F.3d at 330. Finally, Sampson offers no
persuasive argument that the district court abused its
discretion in sentencing him to a below-Guidelines sentence of
sixty-five months. See Pauley, 511 F.3d at 474 (affirming
sentence where downward variance was “reasonable and premised on
3
the factors set forth in § 3553(a)”). Accordingly, we discern
neither procedural nor substantive sentencing error.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Sampson, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Sampson 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 Sampson. 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