United States v. Kortne Melvin , 687 F. App'x 300 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4561
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KORTNE SHAPIRO TALIAFE MELVIN, a/k/a Kortne Shapiro Ailif Melvin,
a/k/a Kortne Shapiro Talif Melvin,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:16-cr-00063-F-1)
Submitted: April 24, 2017 Decided: May 1, 2017
Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jaclyn L. DiLauro, Marshall H. Ellis,
Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart
Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States
Attorney, Barbara D. Kocher, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kortne Shapiro Taliafe Melvin appeals his sentence imposed by the district court
for his guilty plea to possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2012). The district court determined his United
States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) range was 46 to 57 months and sentenced
him to 50 months. On appeal, he contends that his sentence is procedurally and
substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
When reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the district court committed
no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range or
failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal
conclusions de novo. United States v. White, 850 F.3d 667, 674 (4th Cir. 2017). If there
is no procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under a
“deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51–52. We presume that a
sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is substantively reasonable.
United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012). A defendant can only rebut the
presumption by showing that it is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
During sentencing, the district court must first correctly calculate the defendant’s
Guidelines range. United States v. Allmendinger, 706 F.3d 330, 340 (4th Cir. 2013). The
district court is next required to give the parties an opportunity to argue for what they
believe is an appropriate sentence, and the court must consider those arguments in light
2
of the § 3553(a) factors. Id. The district court “must make an individualized assessment
based on the facts presented when imposing a sentence, apply[ing] the relevant § 3553(a)
factors to the specific circumstances of the case and the defendant, and must state in open
court the particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence.” United States v. Lymas, 781
F.3d 106, 113 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
A “district court’s explanation of its sentence need not be lengthy, but the court
must offer some individualized assessment justifying the sentence imposed and rejection
of arguments for a higher or lower sentence based on § 3553.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). The “court’s stated rationale must be tailored to the
particular case at hand and adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). “Although every sentence requires an adequate
explanation, a more complete and detailed explanation of a sentence is required when
departing from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, and a major departure should be
supported by a more significant justification than a minor one.” United States v.
Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). “When imposing a sentence within the Guidelines, however, the explanation
need not be elaborate or lengthy.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Where, as here, the defendant properly preserved the issue of whether the
explanation was adequate, we review the issue for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010). If we find such abuse, we must reverse unless
we conclude that the error was harmless. Id. In such a case, the Government bears the
burden of showing that the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or
3
influence on the result, and we can say with fair assurance that the district court’s explicit
consideration of the defendant’s arguments would not have affected the sentence
imposed. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 838–40 (4th Cir. 2010).
Melvin first contends that the district court erred by applying United States v.
Barlow, 811 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2041 (2016), to calculate
his Guidelines range. We conclude that this argument is without merit, and the district
court properly calculated his Guidelines range. Melvin additionally argues his sentence
is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately explain the
sentence by making an individualized assessment and addressing his argument for a
sentence below the Guidelines range. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court’s explanation was sufficiently individualized and adequate in this case.
Even assuming that the explanation was insufficient, we conclude that any error was
harmless. Finally, Melvin argues his sentence is substantively unreasonable. However,
we conclude that he fails to rebut the presumption that his sentence is reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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