US v. Sean Fowlke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [998903775-2]; denying Motion to file addendum/attachment [998876298-2]; denying Motion to withdraw/relieve/substitute counsel [998870887-2], denying Motion to withdraw/relieve/substitute counsel [998859466-2]; denying Motion for leave to file [998830031-2] Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00332-CCB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998927194].. [11-5102]

Appeal: 11-5102

Doc: 53

Filed: 08/29/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5102

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SEAN DARNELL FOWLKES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:10-cr-00332-CCB-1)

Submitted:

July 24, 2012

Decided:

August 29, 2012

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew R. Szekely, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney,
Michael C. Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-5102

Doc: 53

Filed: 08/29/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Sean Darnell Fowlkes was convicted of possession of a
firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)
(2006), and sentenced to sixty months in prison.

He now appeals

his sentence, claiming that it is substantively unreasonable.
We affirm.
Fowlkes’ advisory Guidelines range was 41-51 months.
The district court gave a lengthy explanation for imposing the
variance sentence

of

sixty

months.

Among

other

things,

the

court mentioned the serious nature of the offense and observed
that Fowlkes possessed the gun and ammunition “within a couple
of

years”

of

Additionally,

his
the

release
court

on

was

parole

troubled

from
by

a

state

Fowlkes’

sentence.

significant

criminal record, which included drug possession, battery, and
assault.
had

Finally, the court expressed its concern that Fowlkes

demonstrated

no

remorse

or

acceptance

of

responsibility.

The court concluded that a sixty-month sentence was necessary to
deter future criminal behavior and to protect the public.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a
deferential

abuse-of-discretion

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

standard.

Gall

v.

United

This review requires evaluation

of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the
sentence.

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir.

2

Appeal: 11-5102

Doc: 53

2010).

Filed: 08/29/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

Fowlkes does not challenge the procedural reasonableness

of his sentence.
In

evaluating

a

sentence

for

substantive

reasonableness, we consider “whether the sentence was reasonable
— i.e., whether the [d]istrict [j]udge abused [her] discretion
in determining that the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors
supported [the sentence] and justified a substantial deviation
from the Guidelines range.”
requires

us

to

“take

Gall, 552 U.S. at 56.

into

account

the

The analysis

totality

of

the

circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range.”

Id. at 51.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing a variance sentence of sixty months.
court

properly

pursuant

to

§ 3553(a)(1)

considered

the

and

§ 3553(a)

(nature

and

fully

explained

factors,

relying

circumstances

of

criminal

the

offense

record,

was

and

serious,
he

had

Fowlkes

decision

especially

the

history and characteristics of the defendant).
stated,

its

The

offense

on
and

As the court

had

demonstrated

a

significant
no

remorse.

Additionally, the court recognized the need to both protect the
public,

§ 3553(a)(2)(C),

and

future,

§ 3553(a)(2)(B).

We

deter
reject

criminal
Fowlkes’

conduct
claim

in

the

that

his

sentence is unreasonable because several of the factors upon
which the district court relied were already taken into account
3

Appeal: 11-5102

Doc: 53

Filed: 08/29/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

by his criminal history score.

Sister circuits have rejected

similar

States

arguments.

See

United

v.

Williams,

526

F.3d

1312, 1323-24 (11th Cir. 2008); United States v. Williams, 517
F.3d 801, 809 (5th Cir. 2008).
We accordingly affirm.

Fowlkes’ motions to file a pro

se supplemental brief and an amendment to that brief, to place
case in abeyance, and to relieve counsel are denied.
motion to withdraw is denied at this time.
that

counsel

inform

Fowlkes,

in
the

petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

review.

If

Fowlkes

requests

This court requires

writing,

that

of

United
a

Counsel’s

his

States

petition

right

for

be

to

further

filed,

but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Fowlkes.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are
and

adequately
argument

presented

would

not

in

aid

the
the

material
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4