United States v. Coleman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5226
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYON ANTHONY COLEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-00485-RBH-3)
Submitted: January 31, 2011 Decided: February 23, 2011
Before SHEDD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey M. Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, P.S.C., Covington,
Kentucky, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rayon Anthony Coleman was found guilty by a jury of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or
more of cocaine (Count 1) and possession with intent to
distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine (Count 2). He was
sentenced to ninety-seven months of imprisonment on each count
to run concurrently. On appeal, Coleman raises two sentencing
issues: (1) whether the district court erred by failing to grant
him a two-level downward adjustment because he was a “minor
participant” under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 3B1.2(b) (2009); and (2) whether his sentence was unreasonable
and greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West
2000 & Supp. 2010). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
First, we review the denial of a downward adjustment
pursuant to USSG § 3B1.2 for clear error. United States v.
Pratt, 239 F.3d 640, 646 (4th Cir. 2001) (providing standard).
A defendant seeking a mitigating adjustment under § 3B1.2 bears
the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he
is entitled to the adjustment, United States v. Akinkoye, 185
F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Palinkas, 938
F.2d 456, 460 (4th Cir. 1991), judgment vacated on other grounds
by, Kochekian v. United States, 503 U.S. 931 (1992), op.
reinstated by, United States v. Kochekian, 977 F.2d 905 (4th
Cir. 1992), and we find no clear error in the district court’s
2
determination that Coleman failed to show he was a minor
participant.
Second, Coleman alleges that his sentence was greater
than necessary and therefore unreasonable. After United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review a sentence for
reasonableness using a “deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). We
find that Coleman’s sentence was reasonable. The court
correctly calculated Coleman’s advisory sentencing range,
reviewed the § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced him within that
range. We apply a presumption of reasonableness on appeal to a
within-Guidelines sentence. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 347 (2007); United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th
Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we affirm. 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
3