US v. Derrick Wilson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00448-CCE-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998877966].. [11-4909]

Appeal: 11-4909

Doc: 52

Filed: 06/19/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4909

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DERRICK LAMONT WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00448-CCE-3)

Submitted:

June 14, 2012

Decided: June 19, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart
Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Graham Tod Green,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4909

Doc: 52

Filed: 06/19/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Derrick Lamont Wilson appeals from his conviction and
171-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy
to

distribute

counsel

grams

filed

has

280

a

or

more

brief

of

in

cocaine

accordance

base.
with

Wilson’s
Anders

v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no
meritorious

issues

for

appeal

but

raising

sentence was substantively reasonable.

whether

Wilson’s

We affirm.

Wilson’s Sentencing Guidelines range was 262 to 327
months of imprisonment.
to

the

statutory

thirty-five

Counsel argued for a downward variance

minimum

percent

of

240

reduction

substantial assistance.

months

sought

by

before
the

applying

Government

a
for

The court declined Wilson’s request for

a variance sentence and instead placed him at the low-end of the
Guidelines range.
This

court

reviews

a

abuse of discretion standard.
38, 51 (2007).
is

determined

circumstances.”

sentence

under

a

deferential

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

The substantive reasonableness of the sentence
by

“tak[ing]
Id. at 51.

into

account

the

totality

of

the

If the sentence imposed is within

the appropriate Guidelines range, this court may consider it
presumptively reasonable.

United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597

F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).

The presumption may be rebutted

by a showing “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
2

Appeal: 11-4909

Doc: 52

against
States

the
v.

Filed: 06/19/2012

[18

U.S.C.

§]

Montes-Pineda,

Pg: 3 of 4

3553(a)

445

F.3d

[2006]
375,

factors.”

379

(4th

United

Cir.

2006)

(internal quotation marks omitted).
Because the district court imposed a within-Guidelines
sentence,

it

reasonable.

is

deemed

by

this

court

to

be

presumptively

See Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d at 216.

not rebutted that presumption.

Wilson has

Therefore, the district court

committed no reversible substantive error in sentencing Wilson
to 171 months’ imprisonment.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We

therefore

affirm

Wilson’s

conviction

and

sentence.

This

court requires that counsel inform Wilson, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Wilson 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 Wilson.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal

contentions

are

adequately

3

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 11-4909

before

Doc: 52

Filed: 06/19/2012

the

and

court

Pg: 4 of 4

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4