United States v. Alvin Pellum, JR., 4th Cir. (2011)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Alvin Pellum, JR., 4th Cir. (2011)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4430
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
ALVIN J. PELLUM, JR., a/k/a AJ,
Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00652-PMD-1)
Submitted:
September 28, 2011
Decided:
October 13, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cameron
J.
Blazer,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Nick Bianchi, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alvin
J.
Pellum,
Jr.
pleaded
guilty
to
felon
in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1),
and
924(a)(2)
calculated
(2006).
Pellums
The
presentence
sentencing
range
investigation
pursuant
to
report
the
U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2010) as 135 to 168 months.
This
was lowered to 120 months, pursuant to the statutory maximum
term of imprisonment.
18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2).
120-month
sentence.
Pellum
district
court
unreasonable
imposed
sentence
sentencing
arguments
now
procedurally
because
and
appeals,
it
to
explanation for the sentence imposed.
claiming
and
failed
failed
Pellum received a
to
provide
that
the
substantively
consider
an
his
adequate
We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007).
district
sentence
court
is
properly
Guidelines
range,
sentencing
factors,
procedurally
calculated
considered
analyzed
the
reasonable
where
defendants
the
18
U.S.C.
any
arguments
advisory
3553(a)
presented
(2006)
by
parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
at 49-50.
the
the
Id.
The district court is not required to robotically
tick through 3553(a)s every subsection.
Johnson,
445
F.3d
district
court
339,
must
345
place
(4th
on
the
2
Cir.
United States v.
2006).
record
an
However,
the
individualized
assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it.
This individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy,
but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case
at hand and adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.
United
States
(quoting
Gall,
v.
Carter,
552 U.S.
564
at
F.3d
50)
325,
330
(internal
(4th
Cir.
footnote
2009)
omitted).
Upon review, we conclude that the district court provided an
adequate
individualized
assessment,
taking
into
counsels arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence.
the
court
did
not
impermissibly
fashioning Pellums sentence.
S.
Ct.
2382,
2392
(2011)
consider
account
Moreover,
rehabilitation
in
See Tapia v. United States, 131
(A
court
commits
no
error
by
discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or
the benefits of specific treatment or training programs.).
The
district court thus did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Pellums 120-month sentence.
See United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review
for properly preserved procedural sentencing error); see also
Gall, 552 U.S. at 46.
We accordingly affirm the district courts judgment.
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
