US v. Richard Moon

Filing 920081124


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4154 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD CRAIG MOON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (6:06-cr-00638-GRA-1) Submitted: October 23, 2008 Decided: November 24, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Richard Craig Moon appeals his conviction and 180-month sentence following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 924(e) (2006). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether Moon's sentence is reasonable, for appeal. but concluding Moon his has there a are pro no se meritorious supplemental designation.1 grounds brief filed career challenging armed criminal We affirm. This court will affirm a sentence imposed by the district court if it is within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable. Cir. 2005). United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th The court reviews Moon's sentence under a deferential See Gall v. United States, 128 S. abuse of discretion standard. Ct. 586, 590 (2007). The first step in this review requires the court to ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the guideline range. United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008). The court then considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. We may 1 The Government elected not to file a brief. 2 presume that a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007) (upholding our presumption of reasonableness). In imposing the sentence, the district court considered the properly calculated advisory guideline range and the factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006). Because Moon had three or more prior convictions for a "violent felony" and/or "serious drug offense" committed on occasions different from one another, he was an armed career criminal subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months' imprisonment under 924(e) and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG") 4B1.4 (2006).2 We conclude that the 180-month sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Moon's conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Moon, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Moon requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may We have considered Moon's pro se challenge to the armed career criminal designation and find that his unsupported and conclusory allegations fail to establish the invalidity of his prior convictions. See United States v. Jones, 977 F.2d 105, 109 (4th Cir. 1992). 3 2 move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Moon. 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

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?