US v. Lamar Murphy
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cr-00231-FDW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999261596].. [13-4222]
Appeal: 13-4222
Doc: 30
Filed: 12/18/2013
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4222
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LAMAR RYAN MURPHY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00231-FDW-1)
Submitted:
November 22, 2013
Decided:
December 18, 2013
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
D. Baker McIntyre III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-4222
Doc: 30
Filed: 12/18/2013
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Lamar Ryan Murphy appeals his conviction and the 120month
sentence
guilty
plea
violation
of
imposed
to
by
possessing
18
U.S.C.
the
district
firearms
as
§ 922(g)(1).
court
a
following
convicted
On
appeal,
his
felon,
counsel
in
has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal
but
questioning
sentenced Murphy.
whether
the
district
court
appropriately
Murphy was notified of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
has declined to file a response brief.
The Government
For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
We
review
criminal
sentences
for
reasonableness,
applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
sentence
for
significant
procedural
Gall v.
We first review the
error,
including
improper
calculation of the Guidelines range, insufficient consideration
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and inadequate explanation
of the sentence imposed.
See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d
572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010).
If we find no such procedural error, we examine the
substantive reasonableness of a sentence in light of the “the
totality of the circumstances.”
sentence
imposed
must
be
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
“sufficient,
2
but
not
greater
The
than
Appeal: 13-4222
Doc: 30
necessary,”
U.S.C.
§
Filed: 12/18/2013
to
satisfy
3553(a).
reasonable
on
the
A
appeal,
Pg: 3 of 5
purposes
of
sentencing.
within-Guidelines
and
the
sentence
defendant
bears
See
is
the
18
presumed
burden
of
“rebut[ting] the presumption by demonstrating 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 have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that Murphy’s sentence is reasonable.
We recognize that the
government’s objections to the presentence report (“PSR”) were
untimely, and that it did not explain the delay.
Nonetheless,
we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision
to adopt the revised PSR, which incorporated the government’s
recommended changes.
See United States v. Archuleta, 128 F.3d
1446, 1452 n.12 (4th Cir. 1997) (recognizing that an explicit
finding of good cause for delay is not always required).
Murphy’s counsel agreed to permit the government to
file
untimely
objections,
pro se objection.
respond
to
resulting
the
notwithstanding
Murphy’s
subsequent
Murphy was given ample time to research and
objections,
enhancements
at
and
he
did
sentencing.
not
See
object
Fed.
R.
to
the
Crim.
P.
32(b)(2); see also United States v. Young, 140 F.3d 453, 457 (2d
Cir.
1998)
(recognizing
that,
although
sentencing
court
has
discretion to deem late objections forfeited, it “may impose
3
Appeal: 13-4222
Doc: 30
sentencing
Filed: 12/18/2013
enhancements
Pg: 4 of 5
belatedly
suggested
by
the
Government
and not contained in the PSR, provided the defendant is afforded
an
adequate
submission
opportunity
and
any
to
respond
revision
of
the
to
the
PSR”
Government’s
(internal
late
citation
omitted)).
The district court properly calculated the Guidelines
range and imposed a sentence within that range.
It considered
the parties’ arguments and provided a detailed explanation of
its sentence, thoroughly grounded in the § 3553(a) factors.
In
addition,
presumption
of
reasonableness accorded to his within-Guidelines sentence.
See
Murphy
never
rebutted
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 379.
the
We therefore find no abuse of
discretion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We
therefore
affirm
Murphy’s
conviction
and
sentence.
This
court requires that counsel inform Murphy, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Murphy 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 Murphy.
4
Appeal: 13-4222
Doc: 30
Filed: 12/18/2013
Pg: 5 of 5
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
5
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?