US v. Rajahn Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:15-cr-00016-FL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999836735].. [15-4568]

Appeal: 15-4568

Doc: 35

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4568

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAJAHN BROWN, a/k/a Big Bra,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (4:15-cr-00016-FL-1)

Submitted:

May 26, 2016

Decided:

May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Barbara D. Kocher, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4568

Doc: 35

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rajahn Brown pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute heroin and marijuana, two counts of possession with
intent to distribute and distribution of heroin, and possession
with intent to distribute marijuana and MDMA/Ecstasy.

On appeal,

he challenges the reasonableness of the 204-month sentence imposed
by the district court.

Finding no abuse of discretion in this

sentence, we affirm.
We “review all sentences — whether inside, just outside, or
significantly outside the Guidelines range — under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.”
38, 41 (2007).
procedural
substantive

Where, as here, the defendant does not assert

sentencing

error,

reasonableness

of

totality of the circumstances.”
within

or

below

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

a

properly

we

turn

the

our

attention

sentence,

Id. at 51.
calculated

presumptively [substantively] reasonable.

to

considering

the
“the

“Any sentence that is
Guidelines

range

is

Such a presumption can

only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors.” United
States

v.

Louthian,

756

F.3d

295,

306

(4th

omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).

Cir.)

(citation

We conclude that

Brown has not met this burden.
Brown contends that the sentence imposed is greater than
necessary to meet the goals of the sentencing factors, citing his
2

Appeal: 15-4568

Doc: 35

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

tragic childhood and the probation officer’s comment that Brown’s
abusive childhood could be basis for a downward variance.
court

did,

in

fact,

consider

Brown’s

difficult

The

childhood

in

mitigation, but, after consideration of the § 3553(a) factors,
determined that a 204-month sentence was appropriate.

We conclude

that the district court adequately explained its reasons for the
sentence imposed and that Brown’s within-Guidelines range sentence
is reasonable.

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; Louthian, 756 F.3d at

306

appellate

(applying

presumption

of

reasonableness

to

a

sentence imposed within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines
range).
We therefore affirm Brown’s sentence.

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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3