US v. Wil McArthur

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00183-JAB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998549054].. [10-4384]

US v. Wil McArthur

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4384

Document: 31

Date Filed: 03/21/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4384

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WIL KARIM MCARTHUR, 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. (1:09-cr-00183-JAB-1)

Submitted:

February 23, 2011

Decided:

March 21, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amy Lee Copeland, AMY LEE COPELAND, LLC, Savannah, Georgia, for Appellant. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4384

Document: 31

Date Filed: 03/21/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Wil Karim McArthur pled guilty to nine counts of

interference with interstate commerce by threats of violence, in violation brandishing of a 18 U.S.C. § 1951 and (2006), in and one to a count crime of of

firearm

during

relation

violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2006). The district court sentenced McArthur to a 174-month sentence, composed of nine concurrent 90-month sentences on the robbery counts and a single mandatory minimum consecutive 84-month

sentence for brandishing a firearm.

Counsel has filed a brief

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there are no meritorious issues for appeal but

questioning the adequacy of the district court's explanation for the selected sentence. file a pro se McArthur was advised of his right to brief, but he has not done so.

supplemental

Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Appellate review of a sentence, "whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range," is for abuse of discretion. (2007). This review Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 requires consideration of both the

procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. 51.

Id. at

This court must assess whether the district court properly the advisory Guidelines factors, 2 range, considered any the 18

calculated U.S.C. §

3553(a)

(2006)

analyzed

arguments

Case: 10-4384

Document: 31

Date Filed: 03/21/2011

Page: 3

presented

by

the

parties,

and

sufficiently

explained

the

selected sentence.

Id. at 49-50; see also 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 (4th Cir. 2009). We may presume a

sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. Cir. 2007). The Guidelines regarding district court properly counsel sentence, calculated an the advisory to argue an United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th

range, an

afforded

opportunity afforded

appropriate

McArthur

opportunity to allocute, and considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors. explain sentence. The its district rationale court, for however, imposing did not sufficiently particular

McArthur's

Although the district court committed error that was

plain, see Lynn, 592 F.3d at 577 (stating standard of review), we conclude that the error did not affect McArthur's substantial rights. The district court sentenced McArthur, as requested, to See

the low end of the properly calculated Guidelines range. id. at 580. McArthur's

With regard to the substantive reasonableness of sentence, McArthur has failed to rebut the

presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. See Allen, 491 F.3d at 193.

3

Case: 10-4384

Document: 31

Date Filed: 03/21/2011

Page: 4

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 McArthur, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If McArthur 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 McArthur.

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

decisional process. AFFIRMED

4