US v. James Crouch


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00299-JAB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998468201] [09-4248]

Download PDF
US v. James Crouch Doc. 0 Case: 09-4248 Document: 38 Date Filed: 11/18/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4248 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES EMMANUEL CROUCH, Defendant -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. (1:07-cr-00299-JAB-1) Submitted: October 28, 2010 Decided: November 18, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. John W. Stone, Jr., Acting United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 09-4248 Document: 38 Date Filed: 11/18/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: James Crouch appeals from his conviction and 215-month sentence following his guilty plea to one count of possession of firearms 922(g), pursuant to by a convicted (2006). v. felon, in violation counsel U.S. of filed 744 18 a U.S.C. brief (1967), 924(e) Anders Crouch's 386 California, 738, stating that there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Crouch's sentence is reasonable. Crouch was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. At our direction, the parties filed briefs addressing the impact of United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009), and United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010). Because our review of the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm Crouch's conviction and sentence. An appellate court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). consideration of both the Id. Gall v. This review requires and substantive procedural reasonableness of a sentence. First, the court must assess whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50; see Lynn, 592 F.3d at 576 ("[A]n individualized explanation must accompany every 2 Case: 09-4248 Document: 38 Date Filed: 11/18/2010 Page: 3 sentence."); Carter, 564 F.3d at 330 (same). If the sentence is procedurally reasonable, the reviewing court must consider the substantive totality of reasonableness the of the to sentence, see "examin[ing] the the circumstances whether sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in [18 U.S.C.] 3553(a) [(2006)]." United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). Crouch argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not consider the 3553(a) statement factors of how and the failed factors to provide in an his individualized case. Because applied Crouch's counsel "dr[ew] arguments from 3553 for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed," counsel "alert[ed] the district court of its responsibility those to render and an a individualized explanation addressing arguments," claim of procedural error has thus been preserved. Therefore, this court reviews the error under the harmless error standard. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 579, 581-82. This standard requires that the Government bear the burden of establishing that the error did not affect Crouch's substantial rights. United States v. Robinson, 460 F.3d 550, 557 (4th Cir. 2006). Specifically, the Government "may avoid reversal only if it demonstrates that the error did not have a substantial 3 and injurious effect or Case: 09-4248 Document: 38 Date Filed: 11/18/2010 Page: 4 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." States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 838 (4th Cir. United 2010) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the record and find that any error in this case was harmless, as we do not doubt that the district court assessed Crouch's argument in applying the 3553(a) factors. See id. at 839. contained in The district court considered the Crouch's presentence report, and information listened to the parties' statements and arguments. Crouch's sentence, the court stated that it had In imposing considered Crouch's history and characteristics, as well as the nature and circumstance of the offense. Moreover, Crouch's arguments in favor of a lower sentence, which included hardship to his family and a difficult upbringing, were weak. the district court considered Crouch's Because it appears that argument for a lower sentence, and in light of the weakness of that argument, the lack of a detailed individualized explanation for the rejection of Crouch's argument does not impair our ability to review the sentence. Thus, any procedural error was harmless. Having determined that there is no reversible procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account 4 the totality of the Case: 09-4248 Document: 38 Date Filed: 11/18/2010 Page: 5 circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Because Crouch's sentence is within the properly calculated Guidelines range, we presume on appeal that it is substantively reasonable. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). United States v. The presumption may be rebutted by a showing "that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 3553(a) 375, factors." (4th Cir. United 2006) States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 379 (internal quotation marks omitted). Crouch has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we hold that Crouch's sentence is procedurally and substantially reasonable. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. court. writing, Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court requires to that counsel the inform Crouch, of in the This of the right petition Supreme Court United States for further review. If Crouch 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 must We dispense state that a copy thereof was served on Crouch. 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 5

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?