UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4085
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
COREY JACKSON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(8:09-cr-00889-HFF-1)
Submitted: October 1, 2010 Decided: October 18, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Corey Jackson pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2006). Jackson’s advisory guidelines range was seventy to
eighty-seven months’ imprisonment. The district court granted
the Government’s motion for a downward departure based on
Jackson’s substantial assistance and sentenced Jackson to fifty
months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Jackson’s counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in
which he questions the reasonableness of Jackson’s sentence and
concludes that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Jackson was advised of his right to file a pro se brief, but he
has not done so. The Government has not filed a response.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
This court reviews sentences for procedural and
substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In
conducting this review, we “must first ensure that the district
court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing
to calculate (or improperly calculating) the [g]uidelines range,
treating the [g]uidelines 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. “When rendering a sentence,
2
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). Once we have
determined that the sentence is free of procedural error, we
must consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
In this case, the district court correctly calculated
the advisory guidelines range. Even assuming the court
committed procedural error in failing to articulate an adequate
individualized assessment of Jackson’s case, we conclude that
the court’s omission did not affect Jackson’s substantial
rights. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 580 (4th Cir.
2010). With regard to the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, it is clear that Jackson’s sentence, which is below
the advisory guidelines range, is not substantively
unreasonable. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in imposing Jackson’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no other meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
3
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client 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 the client. 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