US v. Stephen Blanton, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00302-TDS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999763972]. [15-4275]

Appeal: 15-4275

Doc: 26

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4275

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN ERIC BLANTON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00302-TDS-1)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

February 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant.
Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4275

Doc: 26

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Stephen Eric Blanton, Jr., appeals his conviction and 120month sentence imposed following his guilty plea, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm,

in

(2012).

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1),

924(a)(2)

Blanton’s attorney filed a brief, pursuant to Anders v.

California,

386

U.S.

738

(1967),

conceding

there

are

no

meritorious grounds for appeal, but suggesting as a possible
issue for review whether the district court committed reversible
error when it increased Blanton’s offense level pursuant to U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2A4.1, 2K2.1(c)(1)(A), 2X1.1(a)
(2014).

Blanton has not filed a pro se supplemental brief,

despite

receiving

notice

of

his

right

to

do

so,

Government has declined to file a responsive brief.

and

the

Finding no

error, we affirm.
We review Blanton’s sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse-of-discretion standard.
U.S. 38, 46 (2007).
both

the

sentence.
court

This review requires our consideration of

procedural

and

Id. at 51.

properly

Gall v. United States, 552

substantive

reasonableness

of

the

We first assess whether the district

calculated

the

advisory

Guidelines

range,

considered the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012),
analyzed

any

arguments

presented

by

the

sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
2

parties,

and

Id. at 49–51; see

Appeal: 15-4275

Doc: 26

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir. 2010).
we

find

no

substantive

procedural

error,

reasonableness,

circumstances[.]”

properly

review

“examin[ing]

the

the

sentence

totality

of

for
the

United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d

212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
a

we

If

“Any sentence that is within or below

calculated

Guidelines

range

is

presumptively

[substantively] reasonable” and “[s]uch a presumption can only
be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured

against

the

18

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)

factors.”

United

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
We conclude that Blanton’s sentence is reasonable.

The

district court correctly calculated Blanton’s Guidelines range,
listened to counsel’s argument, afforded Blanton an opportunity
to allocute, and adequately explained its reasons for imposing
the 120-month Guidelines sentence.

We find that the district

court did not err when it increased Blanton’s offense level,
pursuant to USSG §§ 2A4.1, 2K2.1(c)(1)(A), 2X1.1(a), based on
Blanton’s

kidnapping

and

attempted

sexual

assault

during

the

commission of the crime to which he pled guilty.

See United

States

2010)

v.

Llamas,

599

F.3d

381,

387

(4th

Cir.

(“In

assessing whether a sentencing court has properly applied the
Guidelines, we review factual findings for clear error and legal
conclusions

de

novo.”).

Accordingly,
3

Blanton’s

Guidelines

Appeal: 15-4275

Doc: 26

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

sentence is presumptively substantively reasonable, see United
States

v.

Susi,

674

F.3d

278,

289

(4th

Cir.

2012),

and

we

discern no basis in the record to overcome this presumption.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This

We

court

requires counsel to inform Blanton, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

review.

If

Blanton

requests

the
that

United
a

States

petition

be

for

further

filed,

but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
on Blanton.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4