US v. Joey Levi Johnson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOEY LEVI JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (8:06-cr-00990-HMH)
June 3, 2008
June 13, 2008
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Joey Levi Johnson appeals from his conviction and
fifteen-month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Johnson's counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred in sentencing Johnson. Johnson was given an
opportunity to file a supplemental pro se brief, but has not done so. For the following reasons, we affirm. Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district courts for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597-98 (2007);
United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007) (discussing procedure district courts must follow in sentencing defendant). "A sentence within the proper Sentencing Guidelines United States v. Allen, 491
range is presumptively reasonable."
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence). Here, the district court properly calculated the
guideline range, appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, and considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West
- 2 -
2000 & Supp. 2007). Johnson's fifteen month sentence is the bottom of the guideline range and is below the statutory maximum sentence of ten years' imprisonment. Neither Johnson nor the See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a) (2000). suggests any information so
compelling as to rebut the presumption that a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is reasonable. conclude that the sentence is reasonable. As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. This court requires that We therefore
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
client 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 We
must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
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 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?