US v. Ernest Mason


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00330-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000054431].. [16-4257]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4257 Doc: 37 Filed: 04/03/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4257 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERNEST JEROME MASON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00330-CCE-1) Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 3, 2017 Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geoffrey Ryan Willis, WILLIS JOHNSON & NELSON PLLC, Raleigh, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-4257 Doc: 37 Filed: 04/03/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Ernest Jerome Mason appeals his sentence of 151 months of imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846 (2012). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable. We affirm. We review Mason’s sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” United States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 320 (2016). This review entails appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We presume that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court properly calculated the Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the relevant statutory factors, selected a sentence not based on clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explained the chosen sentence. In addition, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to vary downward because Mason had a very serious criminal record. Finally, Mason’s sentence of 151 months was at the bottom of the range recommended by the Guidelines. Therefore, we conclude that Mason’s sentence is reasonable. 2 Appeal: 16-4257 Doc: 37 Filed: 04/03/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Mason, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Mason 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 Mason. 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

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?