United States v. John Saadiq Hasan , 617 F. App'x 246 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4911
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOHN SAADIQ HASAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(4:14-cr-00294-MGL-1)
Submitted: June 16, 2015 Decided: June 19, 2015
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Saadiq Hasan was convicted of threatening a government
official, 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B) (2012), and was sentenced to
41 months in prison. Hasan now appeals. His attorney has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
raising two issues but stating that there are no meritorious
issues for appeal. Hasan was advised of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief, but has not filed such a brief. We
affirm.
Counsel first contends that the district court when it
denied Hasan’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for judgment of
acquittal. We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 29
motion de novo. United States v. Reed, 780 F.3d 260, 269 (4th
Cir. 2015). “Applying that standard, . . . the verdict . . .
must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the
view most favorable to the government, to support it.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the trial
transcript and conclude that there was ample evidence to support
the guilty verdict. Two witnesses testified that they heard
Hasan threaten to kill an employee at a social security office
unless Hasan’s supplemental security income benefit was fully
reinstated. Further, Hasan made one of the threats when he was
outside the social security office, armed with a pitchfork.
2
We next review Hasan’s sentence. His properly calculated
Guidelines range was 33-41 months. After considering the
Guidelines range, the arguments of counsel, Hasan’s allocution,
and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors as they
applied to Hasan, the district court sentenced him to 41 months
in prison.
We review the sentence for procedural and substantive
reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We
must first “ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error.” Id. at 51. If there is no such
error, we then consider the sentence’s substantive
reasonableness, taking into consideration “the totality of the
circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range.” Id. We may presume that a sentence within a
properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United
States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). A defendant may rebut this presumption
only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors.” Id. After reviewing the
presentence investigation report and the sentencing transcript,
we conclude that the sentence is procedurally and substantively
reasonable and that Hasan did not rebut the presumption of
reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines sentence.
3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
appeal. We therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel
inform Hasan, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Hasan
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 of the motion was served on Hasan.
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