United States v. Cornelius Crawford ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-4175
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CORNELIUS C. CRAWFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (7:17-cr-00535-TMC-1)
Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora Blanchard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cornelius C. Crawford pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one
count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(C), and was sentenced as a career offender to 200 months’ imprisonment, followed
by 6 years of supervised release. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal
but questioning the reasonableness of Crawford’s sentence. Although informed of his right
to file a supplemental pro se brief, Crawford has not done so.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007). We first examine the sentence
for procedural error, which includes “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
[Sentencing] Guidelines range, ... failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 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.”
Id. at 51. We then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into
account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range.” Id. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated
Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted
by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal
citation omitted).
2
We have reviewed the record and find that Crawford’s sentence is both procedurally
and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated Crawford’s advisory
Guidelines range, considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the
chosen sentence. Crawford has not overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded
his within-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Crawford, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Crawford 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 Crawford. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3