United States v. Edgar Ross, III, 4th Cir. (2013)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Edgar Ross, III, 4th Cir. (2013)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4119
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
EDGAR ALFRED ROSS, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:11-cr-02202-HMH-1)
Submitted:
September 24, 2013
Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.
THACKER,
Decided:
Circuit
September 26, 2013
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Edgar Alfred Ross, III, pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of a
firearm,
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
922(g)(1),
924(a)(2)
(2006), and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(D)
(2006).
The
district court sentenced Ross to concurrent terms of seventyeight
months
and
sixty
months
imprisonment,
respectively.
Rosss counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Rosss
sentence is reasonable.
Ross was advised of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
We affirm.
Because Ross did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Rule 11 hearing for
plain error.
Cir. 2002).
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th
To prevail under this standard, Ross must establish
that an error occurred, was plain, and affected his substantial
rights.
Cir.
United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th
2009).
district
Our
court
requirements,
review
of
the
substantially
ensuring
that
record
complied
Rosss
voluntary.
establishes
plea
that
with
Rule
was
knowing
the
11s
and
Rosss
erred
in
counsel
imposing
imprisonment.
questions
total
whether
sentence
of
the
district
seventy-eight
court
months
We review Rosss sentence under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.
38, 51 (2007).
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id.;
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010).
After
determining whether the district court correctly calculated the
advisory
Guidelines
range,
we
must
decide
whether
the
court
considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors,
analyzed
the
arguments
presented
by
the
sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
parties,
and
Lynn, 592 F.3d at
575-76; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.
2009).
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
Guidelines
appropriate
appeal
that
the
sentence
range,
is
we
apply
reasonable.
presumption
United
States
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010).
on
v.
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).
Because
considered
as
the
district
advisory
the
court
correctly
applicable
calculated
Guidelines
range
and
and
adequately explained its sentencing determination, we conclude
that Rosss sentence was procedurally reasonable.
Furthermore,
our review of the record leads us to conclude that Ross has not
overcome
the
presumption
of
within-Guidelines sentence.
reasonableness
applicable
to
his
Accordingly, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Ross.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
We therefore affirm Rosss convictions and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Ross, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Ross requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel
may
move
representation.
in
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Ross.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
