US v. Malcolm Green


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00526-RDB-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000056336]. [16-4347, 16-4468]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4347 Doc: 62 Filed: 04/05/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4347 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MALCOLM XAVIER GREEN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 16-4468 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDRE ANTOINE WALKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00526-RDB-2; 1:15-cr-00526-RDB-1) Submitted: March 28, 2017 Decided: Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. April 5, 2017 Appeal: 16-4347 Doc: 62 Filed: 04/05/2017 Pg: 2 of 4 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ruth Vernet, Rockville, Maryland; James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellants. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-4347 Doc: 62 Filed: 04/05/2017 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: Malcolm Xavier Green and Andre Antoine Walker appeal their convictions and sentences following their guilty pleas for conspiracy to commit bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012), bank robbery and armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(a), (d) (2012), and using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation * of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012). We affirm. Green and Walker challenge their firearm convictions on the basis that armed bank robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence. However, we recently addressed this issue in United States v. McNeal, 818 F.3d 141 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 164 (2016), holding that armed bank robbery is, in fact, a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) (2012). 157. Id. at Thus, we reject this claim. Green and Walker also contend that their sentences were procedurally unreasonable because the district court their nonfrivolous arguments for lighter sentences. sentence for reasonableness, discretion standard. applying a ignored We review a deferential abuse-of- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 * Both Appellants preserved the right to appeal this issue with conditional guilty pleas. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). 3 Appeal: 16-4347 Doc: 62 (2007). Filed: 04/05/2017 Pg: 4 of 4 “When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented,” United States (emphasis v. and Carter, internal 564 F.3d quotation 325, 328 Cir. 2009) omitted), marks (4th and “must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review sentencing.” and to promote Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. the perception of fair An extensive explanation is not required as long as we are satisfied “that the district court has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.” United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the sentencing hearings confirms that the district court properly considered the arguments presented by Green and Walker. backgrounds danger and posed committed personal by four The a bank crime court balanced characteristics spree robberies in in evidence against which less than the Green one of their serious and Walker month. We therefore find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district court. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal 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?