US v. Jason Michael Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00167-MOC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000043177].. [16-4306]

Appeal: 16-4306

Doc: 33

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4306

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASON MICHAEL BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:14-cr-00167-MOC-1)

Submitted:

March 14, 2017

Decided:

March 16, 2017

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Parke Davis, Interim Executive Director,
FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,
Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray,
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Jared P. Martin,
Charlotte, North
Assistant United
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4306

Doc: 33

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jason Michael Brown appeals his conviction and sentence of
240

months

of

pornography,

imprisonment

in

violation

of

for
18

transportation

U.S.C.

of

child

§ 2252A(a)(1),

(b)(1)

(2012), and possession of material containing child pornography,
in

violation

Appellate

of

counsel

18

U.S.C.

has

filed

§ 2252A(a)(5)(b),
a

brief

(b)(2)

pursuant

to

(2012).

Anders

v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no
meritorious

issues

for

appeal,

but

questioning

whether

the

district court committed a procedural error by applying a fivelevel sentencing enhancement for pattern of activity.
We

review

deferential

Brown’s

sentence

abuse-of-discretion

for

reasonableness

standard.”

United

We affirm.
“under

a

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.
552 U.S. at 51.

Gall,

In assessing the district court’s calculation of

the Guidelines range, we review its legal conclusions de novo and
its factual findings for clear error.

United States v. Cox, 744

F.3d 305, 308 (4th Cir. 2014).
Based on a review of the record, we conclude the district
court did not clearly err in crediting the child victim’s interview
statements in determining that she had been abused more than once.
2

Appeal: 16-4306

Doc: 33

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

Furthermore, 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
18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) factors, selected a sentence not based on
clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explained the chosen
sentence.

Therefore,

we

conclude

that

Brown’s

sentence

is

procedurally reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This

We

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 in
this court for leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Brown.
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