US v. Jesse Roberson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JESSE DOUGLAS ROBERSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00012-RLV-CH-1)
December 8, 2009
December 31, 2009
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Ann L. Hester, Kevin Tate, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Jesse sentence Douglas Roberson his appeals guilty from plea, the sixty-month to a
written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(A), (C), 846 (2006).
Roberson's counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether Roberson's sentence was procedurally and
Roberson was advised of his right to Finding no reversible
file a pro se brief, but has not done so. error, we affirm.
Consistent with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the district court is required to follow a multi-step process at sentencing. First, it must calculate the proper
sentencing range prescribed by the Guidelines.
Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007); see also United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 260 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1312 (2009). It must then consider that range in light of the
parties' arguments regarding the appropriate sentence and the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), before imposing its sentence. F.3d at 260. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50; see also Abu Ali, 528
We review the district court's sentence for abuse of discretion. district error," Gall, 552 U.S. at 41. did not commit to First, we must ensure the "significant calculate procedural advisory
court such as
Guidelines sentence, consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, or adequately explain the sentence. Id. at 51. Once we have
determined there is no procedural error, we must consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Id. If the sentence imposed
is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we consider it on appeal to be presumptively reasonable. F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). United States v. Go, 517
The presumption may be rebutted
by a showing "that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors." United States v. Montes-Pineda,
445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our review of the record reveals that the district court range, properly taking calculated into account Roberson's the applicable statutory Guidelines mandatory
Critically, because the Government did not
move for a downward departure to reflect substantial assistance, the district court had 18 no authority to depart below the
States, 518 U.S. 120, 125-26 (1996). 3
within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable on appeal and Roberson has not rebutted that presumption. Therefore, we
find that the district court committed no reversible error in sentencing Roberson to sixty months' imprisonment. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Roberson, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. counsel counsel If Roberson requests that a petition be filed, but believes may move that in such this a court petition for would to be frivolous, from
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof We dispense with oral argument because
was served on Roberson.
the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process. AFFIRMED
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?