US v. Raymond Webber

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:08-cr-00048-RLV-DSC-4 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998473185] [10-4243]

US v. Raymond Webber

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4243 Document: 34

Date Filed: 11/29/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4243 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAYMOND CHARLES WEBBER, Defendant -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-00048-RLV-DSC-4) Submitted: November 18, 2010 AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 29, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior

Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven T. Meier, MEIER LAW, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4243 Document: 34

Date Filed: 11/29/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Raymond Charles Webber pled guilty to mail fraud, in violation sentenced counsel of 18 U.S.C. to 125 has § 341 (2006). The district On to court appeal,

Webber

months' filed a

imprisonment. brief pursuant

for

Webber

Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious imposed. grounds for appeal, but challenging the sentence

Specifically, counsel suggests Webber's sentence at

the top of the Sentencing Guidelines range is too harsh and that the district court erred in not giving to Webber credit for time Webber spent in custody on an allegedly related charge. Webber

has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising similar issues. The Government elected not to file a response. We review a sentence for We affirm. under an

reasonableness

abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). both the

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

This review requires appellate consideration of and substantive reasonableness of a

procedural Id.

sentence. court

This court must assess whether the district calculated the advisory Guidelines range,

properly

considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576

(4th Cir. 2010) ("[A]n individualized explanation must accompany every sentence."); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 2

Case: 10-4243 Document: 34

Date Filed: 11/29/2010

Page: 3

(4th Cir. 2009) (same).

In addition, this court presumes a

sentence within a properly determined advisory Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). We conclude that Webber's sentence is both United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d

procedurally and substantively reasonable. properly calculated Webber's Guidelines

The district court range, treated the

Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Moreover, the district court based its sentence on Carter,

Cir. 2007).

its individualized assessment of the facts of the case. 564 F.3d at 328. the presumption

Last, we conclude that Webber has not rebutted that his within-Guidelines sentence is

presumptively reasonable.

With respect to Webber's assertion

that the district court erred in not crediting him for time served on a related did offense, the record deny reflects credit, that rather the it

district

court

not

conclusively

stated it would leave the record open for a ruling on credit because what was before the court was "too nebulous to permit a credit to be granted at the present time." district court did not abuse its discretion We conclude the in imposing the

chosen sentence. As required by Anders, we have reviewed the record and Webber's pro se supplemental brief 3 and find no meritorious

Case: 10-4243 Document: 34

Date Filed: 11/29/2010

Page: 4

issues for review. judgment.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's

This court requires that counsel inform Webber in

writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Webber requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to

withdraw from representation.

Counsel's motion must state that We dispense with oral

a copy thereof was served on Webber.

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

4