US v. James Bryant

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:12-cr-00164-RBH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999114193].. [12-4880]

Appeal: 12-4880

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4880

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES BRYANT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:12-cr-00164-RBH-1)

Submitted:

May 7, 2013

Decided:

May 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4880

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
James

Bryant

pleaded

guilty

pursuant

to

a

plea

agreement to forcibly assaulting a federal correctional officer,
in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§ 111(a)(1)

(2006).

The

district

court sentenced Bryant to thirty-seven months’ imprisonment.

On

appeal,

v.

counsel

has

filed

a

brief

pursuant

to

Anders

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

issues

for

appeal,

but

questioning

the

district

court’s compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11
and the reasonableness of the sentence.

Bryant was informed of

his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not
done so.

The Government declined to file a responsive brief.

Following a careful review of the record, we affirm.
Because Bryant did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
proceedings for plain error.

United States v. Martinez, 277

F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).

To prevail under this standard,

Bryant must establish that an error occurred, was plain, and
affected his substantial rights.

United States v. Massenburg,

564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2009).
establishes

that

the

requirements

of

Rule

district
11

and

Our review of the record

court

fully

complied

with

the

ensured

that

Bryant’s

plea

was

knowing and voluntary.

2

Appeal: 12-4880

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/23/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

We review Bryant’s sentence under a deferential abuseof-discretion standard.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007).

requires

This

review

consideration

of

both

the

procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Id.;

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010).

After

determining whether the district court correctly calculated the
advisory

Guidelines

considered
presented

the
by

range,

§ 3553(a)
the

selected sentence.

we

must

factors,

parties,

and

decide

whether

analyzed

sufficiently

the

the

court

arguments

explained

the

Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575-76; United States v.

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
Once we have determined that the sentence is free of
procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of
the

sentence,

“tak[ing]

circumstances.”

into

account

the

totality

of

the

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575.

If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we
presume

that

the

sentence

is

reasonable.

United

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

States

v.

Such a

presumption is rebutted only if the defendant demonstrates “that
the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a)
factors.”

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379

(4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court committed neither
procedural nor substantive error in sentencing.
3

The court fully

Appeal: 12-4880

Doc: 21

evaluated
report.

and

Filed: 05/23/2013

resolved

Pg: 4 of 4

Bryant’s

objection

to

the

presentence

Upon resolution of the objection, the court accurately

calculated and considered as advisory Bryant’s Guidelines range.
The

court

then

heard

argument

variance, and Bryant allocuted.

from

counsel

for

a

downward

The district court considered

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and explained that the
within-Guidelines

sentence

was

warranted

in

light

of

the

seriousness of the offense.

Counsel does not offer any grounds

to

on

rebut

the

presumption

appeal

that

Bryant’s

within-

Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable, and our review
reveals none.

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court

did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Bryant.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We therefore affirm Bryant’s conviction and sentence.

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

If Bryant 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 Bryant.
AFFIRMED

4