US v. Latarisha Michelle Crawford

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00212-NCT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999649634].. [15-4078]

Appeal: 15-4078

Doc: 24

Filed: 08/28/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4078

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LATARISHA MICHELLE CRAWFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00212-NCT-1)

Submitted:

August 25, 2015

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

AGEE,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 28, 2015

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4078

Doc: 24

Filed: 08/28/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Latarisha Michelle Crawford pleaded guilty to possession of
an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)
(2012).

The district court sentenced Crawford to 120 months of

imprisonment, and she now appeals.

Appellate counsel has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether the sentence is reasonable.

Crawford was

informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
she has not done so.

Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse
of discretion standard.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007); see also United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th
Cir. 2015).

In so doing, we first examines the sentence for any

procedural error, including “failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)]
factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including
an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.”
Lymas, 781 F.3d at 111-12 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).

We

then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence; if
the

sentence

is

within

the

Guidelines

presumption of reasonableness.

range,

we

apply

a

See Rita v. United States, 551

2

Appeal: 15-4078

Doc: 24

Filed: 08/28/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

U.S. 338, 346-59 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness
for within Guidelines sentence).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that
the

sentence

calculated
parties’

is

the

reasonable.

advisory

sentencing

The

Guidelines

arguments,

and

district
range,

court

properly

responded

the

explained

adequately

to

the

chosen sentence.

In addition, Crawford has failed to overcome

the

of

presumption

reasonableness

applied

to

her

within-

Guidelines sentence.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with the
requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
court.
writing,

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
This court requires that counsel inform Crawford, in
of

the

right

to

petition

United States for further review.

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

If Crawford 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 Crawford.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3