US v. Malcolm Green

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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