United States v. Edmunds , 419 F. App'x 404 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4692
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RONALD EDMUNDS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00545-MJP-1)
Submitted: February 15, 2011 Decided: March 31, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny E. Watson, Sr., WATSON LAW FIRM, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Hunter Young, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Edmunds appeals his thirty-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to one count of falsely representing his social
security number on a bank form used to open a checking account
(Count Five), in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (2006);
and one count of knowingly using the identification of another
person while opening a checking account (Count Thirteen), in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (2006). Counsel has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning whether the district court erred in failing to
impose a lower sentence in light of Edmunds’ substance abuse
problems and childhood history. Edmunds was informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). This review requires appellate consideration of
both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a
sentence. Id. This court must assess whether the district
court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range,
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any
arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained
2
the selected sentence. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576
(4th Cir. 2010).
We conclude that Edmunds’ sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court
properly calculated Edmunds’ Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,
473 (4th Cir. 2007). Substantively, the district court based
its sentence on its individualized assessment of the facts of
the case. The court imposed a variance sentence below the
applicable Guidelines range and, giving its reasoning due
deference, we conclude the degree of variance is reasonable.
United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008).
Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing the chosen sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. This
court requires that counsel inform Edmunds, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Edmunds 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
3
was served on Edmunds. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4