US v. Kamario Palmer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KAMARIO EMMANUEL PALMER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00125-NCT-1)
April 29, 2010
May 3, 2010
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Kamario written plea Emmanuel Palmer to pled guilty, of a pursuant firearm to by a a
convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and was sentenced to 64 months imprisonment. Palmer's attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Palmer's sentence is reasonable. Although advised of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Palmer has not done so. We review the district court's sentencing decision for abuse of discretion. (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
In conducting this review, we must first examine the
sentence for "significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range,
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence." sentence, the district court
Id. at 51. must make
When "rendering a an individualized
assessment based on the facts presented," applying the "relevant § 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances of the case
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th The
Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). 2
district court must also "state in open court the particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence" and "set forth enough to satisfy" arguments this and court has a that it has basis "considered for the parties' [its] own
legal decisionmaking authority." omitted). The district court,
Id. (internal quotation marks however, is not required to
"robotically tick through § 3553(a)'s every subsection." States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
If the sentence is free of procedural error, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. at 51. range, Gall, 552 U.S.
If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines this court applies a presumption on appeal that the
sentence is reasonable. 338, 347 (2007).
See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
We conclude that the district court did not commit procedural or substantive error in sentencing Palmer. The
district court properly calculated and treated as advisory the Guidelines' imprisonment range of 57-71 months. The court heard
argument from the parties on the appropriate sentence and gave Palmer an opportunity to allocute. The court considered the
relevant § 3553(a) factors, addressing on the record the nature and circumstances of the offense, Palmer's history and
characteristics, and the need for the sentence to protect the 3
Further, neither counsel nor Palmer offers any grounds
to rebut the presumption on appeal that the within-Guidelines sentence of 64 months' imprisonment is reasonable. As required by 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 Palmer, in writing, of the right to petition review. the If Supreme Palmer Court of the that United a States be for further but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Palmer. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
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?