US v. Junior Pardue

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00073-RLV-DSC-24 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999333861].. [13-4602]

Appeal: 13-4602

Doc: 22

Filed: 04/10/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4602

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUNIOR LEE PARDUE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00073-RLV-DSC-24)

Submitted:

March 19, 2014

Decided:

April 10, 2014

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and FLOYD, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 13-4602

Doc: 22

Filed: 04/10/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Junior

Lee

Pardue

pled

guilty

to

conspiracy

to

distribute, possess with intent to distribute, and manufacture
methamphetamine,

in

violation

(b)(1)(A), 846 (2012).
total

of

release.

100

months

of

21

U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1),

The district court sentenced him to a
in

prison

and

four

years

of

supervised

On appeal, counsel for Pardue filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning the
reasonableness

of

the

sentence.

Pardue

has

not

filed

a

supplemental pro se brief, despite notice of his right to do so.
We affirm Pardue’s conviction and sentence.
In reviewing a sentence, we must first 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 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

The district

court is not required to “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s
every subsection,” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345
(4th Cir. 2006), but “must place on the record an individualized
assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it”
that is sufficient to permit appellate review.

2

United States v.

Appeal: 13-4602

Doc: 22

Filed: 04/10/2014

Pg: 3 of 5

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
If

the

defendant

did

not

argue

for

a

sentence

different than the one imposed, our review is for plain error.
See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010).
But

“[i]f

a

party

repeats

on

appeal

a

claim

of

procedural

sentencing error . . . which it has made before the district
court,

we

review

for

abuse

of

discretion”

and

unless we conclude that the error was harmless.”

will

“reverse

Id. at 576.

In assessing the district court’s application of the Guidelines,
we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error.
United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009).
Only

if

we

find

the

sentence

procedurally

reasonable

can

we

consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.
Carter,

564

F.3d

at

328.

We

apply

a

presumption

reasonableness to a within — Guidelines sentence.

of

United States

v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008).
At

sentencing,

Pardue

argued

that

his

role

in

the

offense was minor such that he was entitled to a reduction in
his total offense level.

We conclude that the district court

did not err in overruling the objection.

See U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2(b) & cmt. n.5 (describing two-level
reduction

available

for

minor

participant);

United

States

v.

Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359 (4th Cir.) (observing that “critical
3

Appeal: 13-4602

Doc: 22

Filed: 04/10/2014

Pg: 4 of 5

inquiry” in assessing § 3B1.2 adjustment is whether defendant’s
conduct is essential to commission of offense), cert. denied,
133 S. Ct. 376 (2012).

Furthermore, the district court provided

an adequate, individualized explanation to support the sentence.
See Carter, 564 F.3d at 330.

Our review of the record therefore

leads us to conclude that Pardue’s within-Guidelines sentence
was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.
United

States

v.

Montes-Pineda,

445

F.3d

375,

379

(4th

See
Cir.

2006) (presumption of reasonableness rebutted only upon showing
that sentence is unreasonable when measured against § 3553(a)
factors).
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 Pardue, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

review.

If

Pardue

Court

of

requests

the
that

United
a

States

petition

for

be

further

filed,

but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Pardue.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal

contentions

are

adequately

4

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 13-4602

before

Doc: 22

this

court

Filed: 04/10/2014

and

Pg: 5 of 5

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

5