United States v. Jose Wilson , 477 F. App'x 117 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-4988
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    JOSE LUIS WILSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.     Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (8:10-cr-00997-HMH-1)
    Submitted:   April 19, 2012                 Decided:   April 24, 2012
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
    South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
    United   States  Attorney,  Greenville,  South   Carolina,  for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jose Luis Wilson pled guilty to assault on another
    inmate and was sentenced to thirty-seven months’ imprisonment to
    run consecutively to his undischarged term of imprisonment.                               On
    appeal,     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 Wilson’s
    sentence was reasonable.              Wilson was advised of his right to
    file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. The
    Government declined to file a brief.                  We affirm.
    Counsel does not direct our attention to any specific
    potential    errors      in    Wilson’s      sentence.           We    review      Wilson’s
    sentence    “under      a     deferential         abuse-of-discretion          standard.”
    Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 41 (2007).                           In conducting
    this   review,     we    must    first    ensure          that   the    district     court
    committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to
    properly calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range, treating the
    Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) (2006) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
    erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
    sentence.     
    Id. at 51
    .           “When imposing a sentence within the
    Guidelines . . . the [district court’s] explanation need not be
    elaborate or lengthy because [G]uidelines sentences themselves
    are    in   many   ways       tailored       to     the    individual        and   reflect
    2
    approximately      two       decades    of      close     attention        to     federal
    sentencing policy.”           United States v. Hernandez, 
    603 F.3d 267
    ,
    271 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Once we have determined that the sentence is free of
    procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of
    the   sentence,    “tak[ing]        into       account    the        totality    of   the
    circumstances.”        Gall, 
    552 U.S. at 51
    .                If the sentence is
    within the appropriate Guidelines range, we apply a presumption
    on appeal that the sentence is reasonable.                           United States v.
    Mendoza-Mendoza, 
    597 F.3d 212
    , 217 (4th Cir. 2010).                               Such a
    presumption is rebutted only if the defendant demonstrates “that
    the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a)
    factors.”     United States v. Montes-Pineda, 
    445 F.3d 375
    , 379
    (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    In this case, the district court adopted the advisory
    Guidelines    range    in     the   presentence      report      without        objection
    from either party.           The court then heard argument from counsel
    and   allocution      from    Wilson    as     to   the   appropriate           sentence.
    Counsel did not request a specific sentence but suggested that,
    despite     the    Guidelines’         recommendation           of     a   consecutive
    sentence, the sentence be run concurrently with the sentence
    Wilson was already serving.                After considering the § 3553(a)
    factors and the advisory Guidelines, the court concluded that a
    consecutive sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range
    3
    adequately addressed the sentencing factors.                       Neither counsel
    nor Wilson offers any grounds to rebut the presumption on appeal
    that      the        within-Guidelines         sentence      was     substantively
    reasonable.          Accordingly, we conclude that the district court
    did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Wilson.
    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 Wilson, in writing, of
    the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
    further review.          If Wilson 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
    was served on Wilson.             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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-4988

Citation Numbers: 477 F. App'x 117

Judges: Floyd, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 4/24/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023