US v. Van Cole, Jr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00361-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999153203].. [12-5000]
Appeal: 12-5000
Doc: 20
Filed: 07/18/2013
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-5000
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VAN MILTON COLE, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00361-WO-1)
Submitted:
July 9, 2013
Decided:
July 18, 2013
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand,
United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-5000
Doc: 20
Filed: 07/18/2013
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Van Milton Cole, Jr., appeals the 105-month sentence
imposed
following
this
court’s
remand
for
resentencing
accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA).
in
Cole’s
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal
but
questioning
whether
the
sentence
imposed
district court on remand was procedurally reasonable.
by
the
Although
Cole was informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se
brief, he has not done so.
Finding no error, we affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel first contends that the
district court procedurally erred by failing to account for the
factors
listed
§ 5K1.1(a)
in
(2009)
U.S.
in
Sentencing
determining
departure awarded on remand.
Guidelines
the
extent
of
Manual
the
(USSG)
downward
We have jurisdiction to consider
Cole’s appeal of the extent of the district court’s downward
departure sentence only if it “resulted in a sentence imposed in
violation of law or resulted from an incorrect application of
the Guidelines.”
United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th
Cir. 1995); see 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2006).
Section 5K1.1(a) of
the Guidelines enumerates a non-exclusive list of factors the
district court “may” consider in ruling on a downward departure
motion.
Upon review, we conclude that the downward departure
sentence imposed by the district court was not contrary to law
2
Appeal: 12-5000
and
Doc: 20
that
Filed: 07/18/2013
the
court
Pg: 3 of 4
correctly
applied
USSG
§ 5K1.1(a)
in
considering the downward departure motion.
Counsel
next
contends
that
the
district
court
procedurally erred by failing to fully address the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors in imposing his sentence on remand.
In
reviewing a sentence, we must ensure that the district court did
not commit any “significant procedural error,” such as failing
to properly calculate the applicable Guidelines range, failing
to
consider
the
§
3553(a)
explain the sentence.
factors,
or
failing
to
adequately
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007).
The district court is not required to “robotically tick
through
§
3553(a)’s
Johnson,
445
F.3d
district
court
every
339,
“must
subsection.”
345
place
(4th
on
Cir.
the
United
2006).
record
an
States
However,
v.
the
‘individualized
assessment’ based on the particular facts of the case before it.
This individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy,
but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case
at hand and adequate to permit ‘meaningful appellate review.’”
United
States
v.
Carter,
564
F.3d
325,
330
(4th
Cir.
2009)
(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (citation and footnote omitted)).
With the above standards in mind, we conclude that the district
court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors and therefore
did
not
abuse
its
discretion
in
3
imposing
Cole’s
sentence
on
Appeal: 12-5000
Doc: 20
remand.
Filed: 07/18/2013
Pg: 4 of 4
See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th
Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court
requires that counsel inform Cole, in writing, of his right to
petition
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
for
further
review.
If Cole requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Cole.
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
conclusions
this
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?