US v. Sammy Ellis, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
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 Doc. 0 Case: 10-4533 Document: 20 Date Filed: 11/18/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4533 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SAMMY LEE ELLIS, JR., Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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

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?