Criminal Practice – Sentencing Guidelines – Procedurally Reasonable Sentence

Defendant failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence.

We affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Defendant pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Defendant to 102 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Defendant’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Defendant’s sentence is substantively reasonable. Although informed of his right to do so,

With respect to the procedural reasonableness of Defendant’s sentence, the district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the parties’ arguments and Defendant’s individualized circumstances, allowed Defendant to allocute, and explained why the chosen sentence was appropriate. Thus, we concluded that Defendant’s sentence was procedurally reasonable.

Turning to substantive reasonableness, the district court considered Defendant’s nonfrivolous mitigating arguments and expressly stated that it did not sentence him at the top of his Guidelines range because of those mitigating factors. The court expressed concern that Defendant’s criminal history was underrepresented and not accurately reflected in his Guidelines range. Ultimately, the court found that Defendant’s criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the need to protect the public outweighed the mitigating factors and warranted the 102-month sentence. We thus concluded that Defendant failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence.

Affirmed.

United States v. Tavaris Lamont Fowler (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 001-199-25, 4 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro (Catherine C. Eagles, C.J.) ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Lisa S. Costner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol Niemeier, Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Unpublished