US v. Johnell Alston

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:11-cr-00029-BR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999003630].. [12-4135]

Appeal: 12-4135

Doc: 34

Filed: 12/17/2012

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4135

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHNELL MCRAE ALSTON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
W. Earl Britt,
Senior District Judge. (4:11-cr-00029-BR-1)

Submitted:

November 30, 2012

Decided:

December 17, 2012

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4135

Doc: 34

Filed: 12/17/2012

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Johnell

McRae

Alston

appeals

his

104-month

sentence

imposed after he pled guilty without a plea agreement to one
count of distribution of fifty or more grams of cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006).

Alston asserts that

his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because he argues that
the district court:

(1) did not address his arguments for a

downward variance; (2) did not explain its reasons for rejecting
his arguments for a variance; and (3) gave an invalid reason to
deny his request for a variant sentence.
that

his

sentence

is

substantively

Alston also asserts

unreasonable

because

he

argues that:

(1) the district court erred when it described its

decision

sustain

to

his

objection

to

his

Guidelines

range

calculation as an “advantage” to Alston; (2) a long sentence
deprives

his

children

of

a

father

“who

is

resolved

to

rehabilitate himself[;]” (3) he should get some credit for a
state

sentence

(“FSA”)

has

he

not

served;
made

and

crack

(4)

the

cocaine

Fair

offenses

Sentencing
“truly

Act

fair.”

Finding no error, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
this

court

reviews

a

sentence

for

reasonableness.

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

requires

the

court

to

ensure

v.

The first step in this
that

committed no significant procedural error.
2

Gall

the

district

court

United States v.

Appeal: 12-4135

Doc: 34

Filed: 12/17/2012

Pg: 3 of 5

Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008).

Procedural errors

include “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence — including an explanation for any deviation
from the Guidelines range.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

“[I]f a party repeats on appeal a claim of procedural
sentencing error . . . which it has made before the district
court,

we

review

for

abuse

of

discretion”

and

unless we conclude “that the error was harmless.”
v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010).

will

reverse

United States

For instance, if

“an aggrieved party sufficiently alerts the district court of
its responsibility to render an individualized explanation” by
drawing arguments from § 3553 “for a sentence different than the
one ultimately imposed,” the party sufficiently “preserves its
claim.”

Id.

at

578.

However,

we

review

structural sentencing errors for plain error.
If,
procedurally
reasonableness

and

only

reasonable
of

the

if,
can

this
it

sentence

court

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).

non-

Id. at 576-77.

finds

consider
imposed.

unpreserved

the

the
United

sentence

substantive
States

v.

We presume that a

sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable.

See United

States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010)
3

Appeal: 12-4135

Doc: 34

Filed: 12/17/2012

Pg: 4 of 5

(“[W]e may and do treat on appeal a district court’s decision to
impose a sentence within the Guidelines range as presumptively
reasonable.”).
We discern no procedural error in Alston’s 104-month
sentence.

Admittedly, in giving its explanation for a sentence,

a district court “must place on the record an individualized
assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it.”
Carter,

564

F.3d

at

330

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

However, the reasons given by the district court need not be
“couched in the precise language of § 3553(a)” so long as the
“reasons

can

be

matched

to

a

factor

appropriate

for

consideration . . . and [are] clearly tied [to the defendant’s]
particular situation.”

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

658 (4th Cir. 2007).

Additionally, a district court need not

provide a “comprehensive, detailed opinion,” as long as it has
satisfied

the

appellate

court

that

it

“has

considered

the

parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its]
own legal decisionmaking authority.”
592

F.3d

States,
district

495,
551

500

U.S.

court

(4th
338,

Cir.
356

adequately

United States v. Engle,

2010)

(quoting

(2007)).

addressed

We
the

Rita

conclude

arguments

v.

United

that

the

raised

by

counsel in support of a variant sentence, and that its rationale
for

the

104-month

sentence

was

meaningful appellate review.
4

sufficient

to

allow

for

Appeal: 12-4135

Doc: 34

Filed: 12/17/2012

Pg: 5 of 5

Having discerned no procedural error in Alston’s 104month sentence, the sentence is entitled to the presumption of
reasonableness.

See Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d at 217.

Although

Alston attempts to rebut this presumption by arguing that his
sentence

is

substantively

unreasonable

because

application

of

the FSA was not an “advantage[;]” his long sentence deprives his
children

of

a

father

“who

is

resolved

to

rehabilitate

himself[;]” he should get some credit for the state sentence he
served; and the FSA has not made crack cocaine offenses “truly
fair[,]” we conclude that Alston’s assertions are insufficient
to rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded his withinGuidelines sentence.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s
judgment.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

5