UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DERRICK LEE HOLLOMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00050-WO-1)
Submitted: September 24, 2010 Decided: October 15, 2010
Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Derrick Lee Holloman pled guilty to interference with
commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2006),
and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2006). The district court
sentenced Holloman to 228 months for each count of conviction,
to be served concurrently. In this appeal, counsel for Holloman
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 the district court imposed an
unreasonably harsh sentence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006). Holloman did not file a pro se supplemental brief,
although informed of his right to do so. The Government elected
not to file an answering brief.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). This review requires appellate consideration of
both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a
sentence. Id. This court must assess whether the district
court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range,
considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576
(4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized explanation must accompany
2
every sentence.”); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330
(4th Cir. 2009) (same). In addition, this court presumes a
sentence within a properly determined advisory Guidelines range
is substantively reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d
178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
We conclude that Holloman’s sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court
properly calculated Holloman’s Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d
468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the district court based
its sentence on its individualized assessment of the facts of
the case. Carter, 564 F.3d at 328. Lastly, Holloman has not
rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is
presumptively reasonable. Thus, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the record and
find no meritorious issues for review. Accordingly, we deny
Holloman’s motion to relieve counsel and affirm the district
court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform
Holloman in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If Holloman requests
that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a
petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court
3
for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion
must state that a copy thereof was served on Holloman. 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