US v. Donald Johnson, Sr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00017-TDS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998842752].. [11-4952]
Appeal: 11-4952
Document: 23
Date Filed: 04/30/2012
Page: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4952
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONALD JOHNSON, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00017-TDS-1)
Submitted:
April 24, 2012
Decided:
April 30, 2012
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 11-4952
Document: 23
Date Filed: 04/30/2012
Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Donald Johnson, Sr., appeals his conviction and fiftyseven month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of bank
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006).
Counsel
for Johnson filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues
for
appeal,
sentence.
but
questioning
the
reasonableness
of
Johnson’s
Johnson was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has not done so.
chosen not to file a brief.
This
court
reasonableness,
The Government has
We affirm.
reviews
applying
the
Johnson’s
sentence
abuse-of-discretion
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
consideration
of
both
the
procedural
F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010).
Guidelines
court
range,
correctly
this
Court
standard.
This requires
and
substantive
Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592
reasonableness of the sentence.
district
for
After determining whether the
calculated
must
decide
Johnson’s
whether
advisory
the
court
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed the
arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained
the
selected
sentence.
Lynn,
592
F.3d
at
575-76;
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
United
If the
sentence is free of significant procedural error, this court
reviews the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
2
Lynn,
Appeal: 11-4952
Document: 23
Date Filed: 04/30/2012
Page: 3 of 4
592 F.3d at 575; United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th
Cir. 2007).
After
thoroughly
reviewing
the
record,
we
conclude
that Johnson’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and that
the district court complied with Rule 11 in accepting the plea.
We
therefore
affirm
sentence,
we
calculated
the
applied
the
Johnson’s
conclude
that
Sentencing
§ 3553(a)
the
As
district
Guidelines
factors.
procedurally reasonable.
within-Guidelines
conviction.
range
The
for
court
and
Johnson’s
correctly
appropriately
sentence
is
thus
Further, we conclude that Johnson’s
sentence
is
substantively
reasonable.
See
United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (a
sentence
within
the
reasonable on appeal).
to
rebut
this
applicable
Guidelines
range
is
presumed
Counsel’s assertions are not sufficient
presumption.
We
therefore
affirm
Johnson’s
sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
We thus affirm Johnson’s conviction and sentence.
This
court requires that counsel inform Johnson, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Johnson 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
3
Appeal: 11-4952
Document: 23
representation.
Date Filed: 04/30/2012
Page: 4 of 4
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Johnson.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
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?