UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4596
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KAMARIO EMMANUEL PALMER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00125-NCT-1)
Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 3, 2010
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kamario Emmanuel Palmer pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and was sentenced
to 64 months imprisonment. Palmer’s attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
whether Palmer’s sentence is reasonable. Although advised of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Palmer has not
done so.
We review the district court’s sentencing decision for
abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
(2007). In conducting this review, we must first examine the
sentence for “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 a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51. 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 marks and emphasis omitted). The
2
district court must also “state in open court the particular
reasons supporting its chosen sentence” and “set forth enough to
satisfy” this court that it has “considered the parties'
arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own
legal decisionmaking authority.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). The district court, however, is not required to
“robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.” United
States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
If the sentence is free of procedural error, we then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking
into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S.
at 51. If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines
range, this court applies a presumption on appeal that the
sentence is reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 347 (2007).
We conclude that the district court did not commit
procedural or substantive error in sentencing Palmer. The
district court properly calculated and treated as advisory the
Guidelines’ imprisonment range of 57-71 months. The court heard
argument from the parties on the appropriate sentence and gave
Palmer an opportunity to allocute. The court considered the
relevant § 3553(a) factors, addressing on the record the nature
and circumstances of the offense, Palmer’s history and
characteristics, and the need for the sentence to protect the
3
public. Further, neither counsel nor Palmer offers any grounds
to rebut the presumption on appeal that the within-Guidelines
sentence of 64 months’ imprisonment is reasonable.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Palmer, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Palmer requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Palmer.
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
4