US v. Walter Griffith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00114-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998689211].. [11-4228]

Appeal: 11-4228

Document: 22

Date Filed: 09/29/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4228

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WALTER FRANKLIN GRIFFITH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00114-WO-1)

Submitted:

September 13, 2011

Decided:

September 29, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant.
Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States
Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4228

Document: 22

Date Filed: 09/29/2011

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Walter Franklin Griffith pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to the possession of a firearm by a
convicted

felon,

in

924(a)(2) (2006).
months’

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§§

922(g)(1)

and

The district court sentenced Griffith to 108

incarceration

supervised release.

followed

by

a

three-year

term

of

On appeal, Griffith’s counsel filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which
he

states

appeal,

that
but

he

could

no

whether

questions

identify

meritorious

Griffith’s

issues

sentence

for
was

reasonable. *
This

court

reviews

a

abuse-of-discretion standard.
38, 51 (2007).
inspect

for

sentence

under

a

deferential

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

The first step in this review requires us to

procedural

reasonableness

by

ensuring

that

the

district court committed no significant procedural errors, such
as

improperly

consider

the

insufficiently

calculating
18

U.S.C.

explaining

the

Guidelines

§

3553(a)

the

selected

range,

(2006)

failing
factors,

sentence.

consider

the

substantive

reasonableness

*

Griffith was advised of his right to
supplemental brief but has declined to do so.
has elected not to file a brief.

2

of

the

or

United

States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837-38 (4th Cir. 2010).
then

to

We

sentence

file a pro se
The Government

Appeal: 11-4228

Document: 22

Date Filed: 09/29/2011

Page: 3 of 4

imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
properly

calculated

We presume that a sentence within a

Guidelines

range

is

reasonable.

United

States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
Here, Griffith raised no objection to the findings or
calculations made in the presentence report, which established
an applicable sentencing range of 100 to 120 months, and which
the court explicitly adopted.

At sentencing, the court heard

the testimony of two witnesses called by Griffith, considered
counsel’s argument requesting a sentence “near the low end of
the guideline range,” and permitted Griffith an opportunity to
speak on his own behalf.
predicated
offense,
protect

on
his

the

nature

history

society

After explaining that its ruling was

and

from

and

circumstances

characteristics,

further

criminal

of

and

Griffith’s

the

conduct,

need

the

to

court

sentenced Griffith to a term of incarceration that fell in the
bottom half of the uncontested Guidelines range.
As

we

have

stressed,

a

sentencing

court

“need

not

robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection,” but must
only
court

“provide

[this

considered

the

particular defendant.”

court]

an

assurance

§ 3553(a)

that

the

sentencing

factors

with

regard

to

the

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652,

657 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Our

review of the record persuades us that the sentencing court did
3

Appeal: 11-4228

so

Document: 22

here.

Date Filed: 09/29/2011

Accordingly,

we

readily

Page: 4 of 4

conclude

sentence is procedurally reasonable.
Griffith

has

not

rebutted

the

that

Griffith’s

We further conclude that

presumption

of

reasonableness

accorded his within-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case, including the guilty plea hearing, and have
found no meritorious issues for appeal.
district court’s judgment.
inform

Griffith,

Supreme

Court

in

of

This court requires that counsel

writing,

the

We therefore affirm the

United

of

the

States

right

for

to

further

petition

the

review.

If

Griffith 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 was served on
Griffith.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4