US v. Kenny Taylor

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to withdraw/relieve/substitute counsel [998399915-2] Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00037-NCT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998484618] [10-4650]

US v. Kenny Taylor

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4650 Document: 22

Date Filed: 12/14/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4650 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. KENNY LASALLE TAYLOR, Defendant ­ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00037-NCT-1) Submitted: November 22, 2010 Decided: December 14, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4650 Document: 22

Date Filed: 12/14/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Kenny Lasalle Taylor appeals the 190-month sentence

imposed following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2113(d) (2006), and to discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (2006).

Counsel for Taylor filed a brief in

this court in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for

appeal, but questioning whether the district court imposed an unduly harsh sentence. Taylor did not file a pro se

supplemental brief, although he was informed of his right to do so. We review a sentence for reasonableness under an

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." (emphasis omitted)); United States v. Carter, 2

Case: 10-4650 Document: 22

Date Filed: 12/14/2010

Page: 3

564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (same). court presumes on appeal that a sentence range

In addition, this within is a properly

determined reasonable. 2007). We

advisory

Guidelines

substantively

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.

conclude

that

Taylor's

sentence

is

both

procedurally and substantively reasonable. properly calculated Taylor's Guidelines

The district court range, treated the

Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, Moreover, the district court based its

473 (4th Cir. 2007).

sentence on its individualized assessment of the facts of the case. See Carter, 564 F.3d at 328. Lastly, Taylor has not

rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. Thus, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore deny counsel's motion for leave to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires

that counsel inform Taylor, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If

Taylor requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move 3

Case: 10-4650 Document: 22

Date Filed: 12/14/2010

Page: 4

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

representation.

Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Taylor. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

4