United States v. Chatman

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4061

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

ROBERT RAMON CHATMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge (1:05-cr-00384-JAB-2)

Submitted: July 31, 2009 Decided: August 18, 2009

Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Robert Ramon Chatman appeals from the 120-month

sentence imposed following his guilty plea, pursuant to a

written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute

fifty grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a

detectable amount of cocaine base, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Chatman’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 Chatman’s sentence was reasonable. Chatman has not

filed a pro se brief, although he was informed of his right to

do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Consistent with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005), the district court is required to follow a multi-step

process at sentencing. First, it must calculate the proper

sentencing range prescribed by the Guidelines. Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007); see also

United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 260 (4th Cir. 2008). It

must then consider that range in light of the parties’ arguments

regarding the appropriate sentence and the factors set out in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), before imposing its sentence. Gall,

128 S. Ct. at 596; see also Abu Ali, 528 F.3d at 260.

We review the district court’s sentence for abuse of

discretion. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 591. First, we must ensure the

2
district court did not commit any “significant procedural

error,” such as failing to properly calculate the advisory

Guidelines sentence, consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,

or adequately explain the sentence. Id. at 597. Once we have

determined there is no procedural error, we must consider the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account

the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If

the sentence imposed is within the appropriate Guidelines range,

we consider it on appeal to be presumptively reasonable. United

States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). The

presumption may be rebutted by a showing “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 and citation omitted).

Our review of the record reveals that the district

court considered the Guidelines as advisory and properly

calculated Chatman’s applicable Guidelines range, taking into

account the ten-year statutory mandatory minimum sentence.

Furthermore, Chatman’s within-Guidelines sentence is

presumptively reasonable on appeal and Chatman has not rebutted

that presumption. Critically, because the Government did not

move for a downward departure to reflect substantial assistance,

the district court had no authority to depart below the

mandatory minimum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e); Melendez v. United

3
States, 518 U.S. 120, 125-26 (1996). Therefore, we find that

the district court committed no reversible error in sentencing

Chatman to 120 months’ imprisonment.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

We therefore affirm Chatman’s conviction and sentence. This

court requires that counsel inform Chatman, in writing, of his

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for

further review. If Chatman requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Chatman. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED