Scribd
Upload
29 views5 pages

Fourth Circuit Affirms Carson's Sentence

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Dantonio Carson's conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The Court found that the district court properly accepted Carson's guilty plea and correctly calculated his advisory sentencing guidelines range. While the district court omitted an individualized assessment of Carson's case, the omission did not affect Carson's substantial rights. Neither Carson nor his counsel put forth any arguments to overcome the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence was reasonable. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
29 views5 pages

Fourth Circuit Affirms Carson's Sentence

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Dantonio Carson's conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The Court found that the district court properly accepted Carson's guilty plea and correctly calculated his advisory sentencing guidelines range. While the district court omitted an individualized assessment of Carson's case, the omission did not affect Carson's substantial rights. Neither Carson nor his counsel put forth any arguments to overcome the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence was reasonable. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4996

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
DANTONIO RODREQUEZ CARSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00422-HMH-1)

Submitted:

March 4, 2010

Before MOTZ and


Circuit Judge.

AGEE,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

March 31, 2010

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin
T.
Stepp,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Leesa Washington,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Dantonio Rodrequez Carson pled guilty without a plea
agreement to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon,

in

violation

district

court

of

18

U.S.C.

calculated

922(g)(1)

Carsons

(2006).

advisory

The

Guidelines

imprisonment range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual


(2008) at 51 to 63 months and sentenced Carson to 62 months
imprisonment.

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that the appeal lacks
merit

but

failing

questioning

to

consider,

whether
for

the

district

purposes

of

court

calculating

erred

in

sentencing

credit, the time Carson spent in state custody from the date of
his initial appearance in the district court.

We affirm.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire


record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
review.
leads

us

Our review of the transcript of the guilty plea hearing


to

conclude

that

the

district

court

substantially

complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting


Carsons guilty plea and that Carsons substantial rights were
not

infringed.

district

court

independent
knowingly

Critically,
ensured

factual
and

the

that

basis

voluntarily

the

and

transcript
plea

that

with

an

was

Carson

reveals

that

supported
entered

understanding

by

the
an

the

plea

of

the

consequences.

See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116,

119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).


Turning to Carsons sentence, we review it under a
deferential

abuse-of-discretion

standard.

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).


must

first

ensure

that

Gall

v.

United

In conducting this review, we

the

district

court

committed

no

significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or


improperly

calculating)

the

Guidelines

range,

treating

the

Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]


3553(a)

[(2006)]

factors,

selecting

sentence

based

on

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the


Id. at 51.

chosen sentence.

When rendering a sentence, the

district court must make an individualized assessment based on


the facts presented, applying the relevant 3553(a) factors
to the specific circumstances of the case before it.

United

States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation
state

marks

in

open

and

emphasis

court

the

omitted).

particular

The

court

reasons

must

also

supporting

its

chosen sentence and set forth enough to satisfy this court


that

it

reasoned

has

considered

basis

authority.

for

the

parties

exercising

[its]

arguments

own

legal

and

has

decisionmaking

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Once we have determined that the sentence is free of


procedural

error,

we

must
3

consider

the

substantive

reasonableness

of

the

sentence,

totality of the circumstances.

tak[ing]

into

account

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

the

If the

sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, this court


applies a presumption on appeal that the sentence is reasonable.
See United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008).
Here,
advisory
counsel

the

district

Guidelines
and

correctly

range

allocution

concedes

court

and

correctly

heard

from

Carson.

the

district

that

calculated

argument
While
court

from

Carsons

Anders
did

the

counsel

not

err

in

failing to consider the time Carson spent in state custody for


purposes of calculating sentencing credit, see United States v.
Wilson,

503

procedural

U.S.
error

329,
in

334-35

failing

assessment of Carsons case.


courts

omission

did

(1992),

not

to

the

provide

court

an

committed

individualized

We conclude, however, that the

affect

Carsons

substantial

rights.

See United States v. Washington, 404 F.3d 834, 843 (4th Cir.
2005).

Further,

neither

counsel

nor

Carson

put

forth

any

factors to overcome the appellate presumption of reasonableness


afforded his within-Guidelines sentence.
We

therefore

affirm

the

district

courts

judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Carson, in writing, of


the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Carson requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,


4

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation.

Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Carson.


We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in

aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

You might also like