United States v. Johnathan Parrish

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4256
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOHNATHAN KAREEM PARRISH,
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. (1:11-cr-00194-JAB-1)
Submitted: September 18, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P.
Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnathan Parrish pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The
district court sentenced him to 46 months of imprisonment.
Parrish now appeals. In accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Parrish’s attorney has filed a brief
certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questioning the substantive reasonableness of Parrish’s
sentence. Parrish received notice of his right to file a
supplemental pro se brief, but has not done so. Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review Parrish’s sentence for reasonableness,
applying a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 52 (2007). We begin by reviewing
the sentence for significant procedural error, including
improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider
sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), sentencing
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the sentence imposed. Id. at 51. Only if we find a
sentence procedurally reasonable can we consider substantive
reasonableness. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th
Cir. 2009). Here, Parrish’s within-Guidelines sentence is
presumed reasonable, United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d 388, 395
2
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 350 (2011), and we find no
procedural or substantive error in its imposition.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Therefore, we affirm Parrish’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires counsel to inform Parrish, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Parrish requests that a petition be filed
but counsel believes 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 Parrish. 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 in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3