US v. Amhal Bostic

Filing 920100429

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4251

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AMHAL RASHAD BOSTIC, 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. (1:08-cr-00182-JAB-1)

Submitted:

April 15, 2010

Decided:

April 29, 2010

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher A. Beechler, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Amhal Rashad Bostic pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to bank robbery with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) (2006), and carrying and using, by

brandishing, a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) to (2006). months The on district the court

sentenced

Bostic

thirty-three

robbery

conviction and a mandatory seven-year term of imprisonment on the § 924(c) count. On appeal, Bostic's counsel has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. The Government declined to file a responsive brief.

Bostic was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Our careful review of the record convinces us that the district court fully complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Bostic's guilty plea and ensured that Bostic entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily and that the plea was supported by an independent factual basis. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116-17, 119-20 See United States v. (4th Cir. 1991).

Accordingly, we affirm Bostic's convictions. We review Bostic's sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This 2 Gall v. United States, 552 review requires appellate

consideration

of

both

the

procedural Id.

and

substantive

reasonableness of a sentence. sentence assess is procedurally the

In determining whether a this court must first the This

reasonable, court

whether

district guidelines

properly Id.

calculated at 49-50.

defendant's

advisory

range.

court then must consider whether the district court considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), analyzed the

arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. "Regardless of whether the district

court imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on the record an `individualized assessment' based on the particular facts of the case before it." Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Although the district court procedurally erred when it imposed Bostic's sentence without on did explicitly the not particular argue did for not a making facts an of United States v.

individualized Bostic's outside case, of his

assessment because

based

Bostic

sentence

guidelines

range,

Bostic

adequately United 2010).

preserve an objection to the district court's error. States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 579-80 (4th Cir.

Accordingly, we need only review the sentencing error for plain error. See id. at 580. To establish plain error, Bostic has to show that an error: (i) was made; (ii) is plain (i.e., clear or obvious); and 3

(iii)

affects

his

substantial

rights.

United

States

v.

Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2009).

Even if we

assumed that the district court's brief explanation of Bostic's sentence constituted an obvious error in violation of Carter, Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) requires Bostic to also show that the district court's lack of explanation had a prejudicial effect on the sentence imposed. 1423, 1433, n.4 (2009). a showing. Finally, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Cir. 2007). United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th We presume that a sentence imposed within the See Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. We find Bostic has failed to make such

properly calculated guidelines range is reasonable.

Rita v.

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007); United States v. Smith, 566 F.3d of 410, 414 (4th to Cir. 2009). Applying the

presumption

reasonableness

Bostic's

within-guidelines

sentence, which Bostic fails to rebut on appeal, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Bostic, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 4

further review.

If Bostic 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 state that a copy thereof We dispense with oral argument because

was served on Bostic.

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. AFFIRMED

5