US v. Kevin Brown
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00423-CCE-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000031010].. [16-4296]
Appeal: 16-4296
Doc: 38
Filed: 02/27/2017
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4296
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN EUGENE BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00423-CCE-1)
Submitted:
February 23, 2017
Decided:
February 27, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lynne Louise Reid, L.L. REID LAW, Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-4296
Doc: 38
Filed: 02/27/2017
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Kevin
Eugene
Brown
appeals
his
conviction
and
96-month
sentence after pleading guilty to distribution of cocaine base,
in
violation
Brown’s
of
21
counsel
California,
386
has
U.S.
U.S.C.
filed
738
§ 841(a)(1),
a
brief
(1967),
(b)(1)(C)
pursuant
stating
to
that
(2012).
Anders
there
are
v.
no
meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Brown’s
sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Brown
has filed a pro se brief challenging his designation as a career
offender.
We
We affirm.
review
substantive
Brown’s
reasonableness
discretion standard.”
(2007).
sentence
for
“under
a
both
procedural
deferential
and
abuse-of-
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
We must ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the
Guidelines
range.
Id.
at
51.
If
there
is
no
significant
procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s substantive
reasonableness
under
“the
totality
of
the
circumstances,
including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.”
Id.
We presume that a sentence below a properly calculated
Guidelines range is reasonable.
United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
A defendant can rebut this
presumption only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”
2
Id.
Appeal: 16-4296
Doc: 38
After
Filed: 02/27/2017
reviewing
transcript,
we
the
conclude
Pg: 3 of 4
presentence
that
report
Brown’s
calculated
sufficiently
the
explained
Brown received.
its
advisory
reasons
is
both
The district court
Guidelines
for
sentencing
sentence
procedurally and substantively reasonable.
properly
and
range
imposing
the
and
sentence
We discern no error in the district court’s
application of the career offender enhancement, as Brown had the
requisite number of prior convictions for controlled substance
offenses.
Finally, Brown has not made the showing necessary to
rebut
presumption
the
of
reasonableness
accorded
his
below-
reviewed
the
entire
Guidelines sentence.
In
accordance
with
Anders,
we
have
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 Brown, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Brown requests that a petition be 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 Brown.
3
Appeal: 16-4296
Doc: 38
Filed: 02/27/2017
Pg: 4 of 4
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
4
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?