US v. Tony Lamont Rochelle, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cr-00146-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4647]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
March 30, 2017
April 3, 2017
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Ira Knight, Assistant
Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
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.
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,
unreasonable sentence by denying a downward variance.
was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief
but has not done so.
The Government has declined to file a
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review Rochelle’s sentence for reasonableness, applying
States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007).
We first ensure that the court
“committed no significant procedural error,” such as improper
consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and
inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed.
v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
reasonable, we also review its substantive reasonableness under
“the totality of the circumstances.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Pg: 3 of 4
reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th
Rochelle bears the burden to rebut this presumption
against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”
Our review of the record indicates that Rochelle’s sentence
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.
downward variance, but reasonably declined to sentence him below
unwarranted based on the seriousness of the offense, the benefit
substantial need to protect the public.
Rochelle fails to rebut
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
This court requires that counsel inform Rochelle, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
If Rochelle requests that a petition be filed,
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
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Rochelle.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?