US v. Sammy Ellis, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:09-cr-01075-HFF-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998468242] [10-4533]

US v. Sammy Ellis, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4533 Document: 20

Date Filed: 11/18/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4533 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. SAMMY LEE ELLIS, JR., Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (7:09-cr-01075-HFF-1) Submitted: October 21, 2010 Decided: November 18, 2010

Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Loggins, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4533 Document: 20

Date Filed: 11/18/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Sammy Ellis, Jr., pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after by having a term previously of been convicted exceeding of one a crime in

punishable

imprisonment

year,

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006).

The district court

sentenced Ellis to twenty-one months of imprisonment, and he now appeals. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable. Ellis was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In so

doing, we first examine the sentence for "significant procedural error," including "failing to calculate (or improperly

calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines as mandatory, failing to consider a the [18 U.S.C.] based on § 3553(a) clearly

[(2006)]

factors,

selecting

sentence

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence . . . ." consider imposed." the Id. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. reasonableness Finally, we "then of the sentence

substantive

We presume on appeal that a sentence within a 2

Case: 10-4533 Document: 20

Date Filed: 11/18/2010

Page: 3

properly

calculated

advisory

guidelines

range

is

reasonable.

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence is reasonable. The district court properly

calculated the guidelines range, considered the guidelines range along with the § 3553(a) factors, and explained its chosen

sentence.

See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328-30

(4th Cir. 2009) (reaffirming that sentencing court must make individualized assessment on the record and explain rejection of parties' Moreover, arguments Ellis has for sentence to outside overcome guidelines the range). of

failed

presumption

reasonableness we accord to his within-guidelines sentence. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. court. writing, Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court requires to that counsel the inform Ellis, of in the

This of

the

right

petition

Supreme

Court

United States for further review.

If Ellis 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 We dispense with

state that a copy thereof was served on Ellis. 3

Case: 10-4533 Document: 20

Date Filed: 11/18/2010

Page: 4

oral

argument

because in

the the

facts

and

legal before

contentions the court

are and

adequately

presented

materials

argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED

4