US v. Tony Lamont Rochelle, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cr-00146-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000054327].. [16-4647]

Appeal: 16-4647

Doc: 20

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4647

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TONY LAMONT ROCHELLE, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:16-cr-00146-CCE-1)

Submitted:

March 30, 2017

Decided:

April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Ira Knight, Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Greensboro,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-4647

Doc: 20

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Tony Lamont Rochelle, Jr., pled guilty to carjacking, 18
U.S.C. § 2119 (2012), and brandishing a firearm during a crime
of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012).
his resulting 130-month sentence.

He appeals

On appeal, Rochelle’s counsel

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal,
but

questioning

whether

the

district

court

imposed

unreasonable sentence by denying a downward variance.

an

Rochelle

was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief
but has not done so.
response brief.

The Government has declined to file a

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We review Rochelle’s sentence for reasonableness, applying
“a

deferential

abuse-of-discretion

States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007).

standard.”

Gall

v.

United

We first ensure that the court

“committed no significant procedural error,” such as improper
calculation

of

the

Sentencing

Guidelines,

insufficient

consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and
inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed.

United States

v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks

omitted).

If

we

find

the

sentence

procedurally

reasonable, we also review its substantive reasonableness under
“the totality of the circumstances.”
presume

that

a

within-Guidelines
2

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
sentence

is

We

substantively

Appeal: 16-4647

Doc: 20

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th
Cir. 2014).

Rochelle bears the burden to rebut this presumption

“by

that

showing

the

sentence

is

unreasonable

against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”

when

measured

Id.

Our review of the record indicates that Rochelle’s sentence
is reasonable.

The court properly calculated the applicable

Sentencing Guidelines range, considered the parties’ sentencing
arguments, and provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence
it imposed, expressly grounded in various § 3553(a) factors.
The

court

specifically

considered

Rochelle’s

request

for

a

downward variance, but reasonably declined to sentence him below
the

Guidelines

range,

concluding

that

such

a

reduction

was

unwarranted based on the seriousness of the offense, the benefit
Rochelle

received

significant

from

criminal

the

record

plea
at

a

bargaining
very

substantial need to protect the public.
the

presumption

of

substantive

process,

young

age,

and

his
a

Rochelle fails to rebut

reasonableness

accorded

his

within-Guidelines sentence.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

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 Rochelle, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Rochelle requests that a petition be filed,
3

Appeal: 16-4647

Doc: 20

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

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 Rochelle.
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