US v. Darrith Beall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:09-cr-00900-PMD-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999145283].. [12-4985]

Appeal: 12-4985

Doc: 28

Filed: 07/09/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4985

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRITH LAVON BEALL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00900-PMD-1)

Submitted:

June 17, 2013

Decided:

July 9, 2013

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ann Briks Walsh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
Matthew J. Modica, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Charleston,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4985

Doc: 28

Filed: 07/09/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Darrith

Lavon

Beall

pled

guilty

to

possession

with

intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 2006 & Supp. 2013),
and was sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment.
court

later

motion

construed

for

reduction

Beall’s
of

18

U.S.C.

sentence

as

The district

§ 3582(c)(2)
28

a

(2006)
§ 2255

U.S.C.A.

(West Supp. 2013) motion, calculated his Guidelines range under
the

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

(2011)

at

151

to

188

months’ imprisonment, granted Beall § 2255 relief, and, after
imposing

a

downward

imprisonment.

variance,

sentenced

him

to

139

months’

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there are no
meritorious

issues

for

appeal,

but

139-month sentence is reasonable.

questioning

whether

the

Beall 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. *

We affirm.
We
under

a

review

the

“deferential

139-month

sentence

abuse-of-discretion

*

for

reasonableness

standard.”

Gall

v.

We note that the Government also did not file a
cross-appeal to challenge the lawfulness of the district court’s
decision to impose the 139-month sentence.
Therefore, any
alleged error in this regard may not be addressed on appeal.
Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243-53 (2008).

2

Appeal: 12-4985

Doc: 28

United

Filed: 07/09/2013

States,

552

U.S.

abuse-of-discretion

the

38,

standard

first,

we

examine

Pg: 3 of 4

41,

involves

sentence

for

51

two

(2007).

steps;

This

under

significant

the

procedural

errors, and under the second, we review the substance of the
sentence.

United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir.

2007) (examining Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51).
court

imposes

a

the . . . court
decision
extent

to

variant

acted

impose

of

the

United States

sentence,

reasonably

such

a

divergence

v.

we

both

sentence

consider

with

and

from

When the district

respect

with

the

“whether
to

respect

sentencing

Hernandez-Villanueva,

its

to

the

range.”

473

F.3d

118,

123

the

record

that

the

imposing

the

(4th Cir. 2007).
We
district

court

139-month

did

range

and

after

not

sentence.

Guidelines
parties

conclude

and

review

abuse
The

court

heard

allocution

its

from

of

discretion
properly

argument

from

Beall.

The

in

calculated
counsel
court

Beall’s
for

imposed

both
the

139-month sentence after considering relevant sentencing factors
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) and explaining that a downward
variance

was

efforts

while

warranted

in

light

incarcerated.

of

Beall’s

Further,

rehabilitation

counsel

does

not

suggest - and review of the record does not reveal any basis for
concluding - that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.

3

Appeal: 12-4985

Doc: 28

Filed: 07/09/2013

Additionally,
reviewed

the

in

remainder

accordance

of

the

meritorious issues for review.
court’s

amended

Pg: 4 of 4

judgment.

with

record

Anders,

we

have

found

and

have
no

We therefore affirm the district

This

court

requires

that

counsel

inform Beall, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If

Beall

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 Beall.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4