US v. Dantonio Carson

Filing 920100331

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4996 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DANTONIO RODREQUEZ CARSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:09-cr-00422-HMH-1) Submitted: March 4, 2010 Decided: March 31, 2010 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dantonio Rodrequez Carson pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation court of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (2006). The district calculated Carson's advisory Guidelines imprisonment range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2008) at 51 to 63 months and sentenced Carson to 62 months' imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that the appeal lacks merit failing but to questioning consider, whether for the district of court erred in purposes calculating sentencing credit, the time Carson spent in state custody from the date of his initial appearance in the district court. We affirm. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for review. leads us Our review of the transcript of the guilty plea hearing to conclude that the district court substantially complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Carson's guilty plea and that Carson's substantial rights were not infringed. court Critically, ensured that and the the transcript plea was reveals that by the an plea the district supported entered independent knowingly factual and basis that an Carson the of voluntarily with understanding 2 consequences. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Turning to Carson's sentence, we review it under a "deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). "must first ensure that the In conducting this review, we district court committed no 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." Id. at 51. "When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented," applying the "relevant 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances of the case before it." United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation "state in marks open and emphasis the omitted). The reasons court must also its court particular supporting chosen sentence" and "set forth enough to satisfy" this court that it has basis "considered for the parties' [its] own arguments legal and has a reasoned exercising decisionmaking authority." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Once we have determined that the sentence is free of procedural error, we must 3 consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, "tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances." Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, this court applies a presumption on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). Here, advisory counsel the district range and court heard Carson. district correctly argument While court calculated from Anders did not the Guidelines and Carson's counsel err in allocution that from the correctly concedes failing to consider the time Carson spent in state custody for purposes of calculating sentencing credit, see United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. error 329, in 334-35 (1992), to the an court committed procedural failing provide individualized assessment of Carson's case. court's omission did not We conclude, however, that the Carson's substantial rights. affect See United States v. Washington, 404 F.3d 834, 843 (4th Cir. 2005). Further, neither counsel nor Carson put forth any factors to overcome the appellate presumption of reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines sentence. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Carson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Carson requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 4 then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Carson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in the the materials decisional would aid 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?