US v. Reshawn Allen

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00218-TDS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999137420].. [13-4019]

Appeal: 13-4019

Doc: 20

Filed: 06/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RESHAWN ORLANDO ALLEN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00218-TDS-1)

Submitted:

June 20, 2013

Decided:

June 25, 2013

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen F. Wallace, THE WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Timothy Nicholas Matkins, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4019

Doc: 20

Filed: 06/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Reshawn

Orlando

Allen

appeals

his

conviction

and

forty-five-month sentence following his guilty plea to being a
felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2006).

In accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), Allen’s counsel has filed a brief certifying that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether

the

district

accepting

court

complied

Allen’s

reasonable.

plea

with

and

Fed.

whether

R.

Crim.

Allen’s

P.

11

sentence

when
is

Although notified of his right to do so, Allen has not

filed a supplemental brief.

We affirm.

Where, as here, a defendant did not move to withdraw
his plea, we review his Rule 11 hearing for plain error.
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).

United
Because

the district court fully complied with Rule 11 when accepting
Allen’s

plea,

we

conclude

that

the

plea

voluntary and, therefore, final and binding.

was

knowing

and

United States v.

Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
We review Allen’s sentence for reasonableness, using
an abuse of discretion standard.
U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Gall v. United States, 552

We first review for significant procedural

errors, including improperly calculating the Guidelines range,
failing

to

sentencing

consider
under

the

clearly

18

U.S.C.
erroneous
2

§ 3553(a)
facts,

(2006)
or

factors,

failing

to

Appeal: 13-4019

Doc: 20

Filed: 06/25/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

adequately explain the sentence.

Id. at 51; United States v.

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

Only if we find a

sentence procedurally reasonable may we consider its substantive
reasonableness.

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th

Cir. 2009).
“When rendering a sentence, the district court must
make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented,”
Carter, 564 F.3d at 328 (internal quotation marks and emphasis
omitted), and must “adequately explain the chosen sentence to
allow

for

meaningful

appellate

perception of fair sentencing.”

review

and

to

promote

Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.

the

When, as

here, a district court imposes a sentence that falls outside of
the

applicable

sentencing
decision

Guidelines

court

to

acted

impose

such

range,

reasonably
a

we

consider

both

sentence

and

“whether

with

respect

to

its

with

respect

to

the

extent of the divergence from the sentencing range.”
States
2007).

v.

Hernandez-Villanueva,

473

F.3d

the

118,

123

United

(4th

Cir.

In conducting this review, we “must give due deference

to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on
a whole, justify the extent of the variance.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at

51.
We conclude that Allen’s sentence is both procedurally
and

substantively

reasonable.

The

district

court

correctly

calculated Allen’s Guidelines range and clearly explained the
3

Appeal: 13-4019

Doc: 20

Filed: 06/25/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

basis for imposing a sentence above that range, with reference
to

the

appropriate

18

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)

factors,

Allen’s

individual circumstances, and the nature of Allen’s offense.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record

and

therefore

have

affirm

found

no

Allen’s

meritorious
conviction

issues

and

for

appeal.

sentence.

This

We
court

requires that counsel inform Allen, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Allen 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 Allen.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4