US v. Kenny Taylor


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
US v. Kenny Taylor Doc. 0 Case: 10-4650 Document: 22 Date Filed: 12/14/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4650 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KENNY LASALLE TAYLOR, Defendant Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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

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?