US v. Kevin Brown


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4296 Doc: 38 Filed: 02/27/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4296 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN EUGENE BROWN, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?