UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4454
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERMAINE JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00006-BEL-1)
Submitted: December 1, 2010 Decided: December 17, 2010
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas J. Saunders, LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS J. SAUNDERS, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Albert David Copperthite, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Jermaine Johnson pled guilty to one count of
possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006). After determining Johnson
qualified for the career offender enhancement pursuant to U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2006), the district court
sentenced Johnson to 168 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), indicating that this court should affirm the
district court’s judgment, but explaining that Johnson wishes to
question the reasonableness of his sentence. Counsel has also
moved to withdraw from further representation of Johnson.
Johnson has not filed a pro se supplemental brief despite
receiving notice that he may do so, and the Government declined
to file a responsive brief. Because we conclude the district
court committed no reversible error in this case, we affirm its
judgment.
This court reviews a district court’s sentence for
reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). This review
requires appellate consideration of both the procedural and
substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
In determining procedural reasonableness, this court considers
2
whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s
advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties,
and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.
Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above,
below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on the
record “an individualized assessment based on the particular
facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Finally, this court reviews the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the
circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its
discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied
the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If the
sentence imposed is within the appropriate Guidelines range,
this court considers it on appeal to be presumptively
reasonable. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir.
2008). This 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 omitted).
Johnson’s argument that his classification as a career
offender overrepresents the seriousness of his offense has no
3
merit in light of his robust criminal history. Furthermore,
Johnson cannot benefit from Amendment 706 to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines because his sentence was based on his
career offender status rather than the quantity of cocaine
attributable to him. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183,
188 (4th Cir. 2010) (A sentence may not be reduced pursuant to
“Amendment 706 if the defendant seeking the reduction was
sentenced pursuant to the Career Offender Provision.”). Thus,
we conclude the district court properly calculated Johnson’s
Guidelines range. The record also establishes that the district
court provided an individualized analysis of the § 3553(a)
factors as they applied to Johnson’s circumstances and analyzed
the arguments presented by the parties. Accordingly, we
conclude Johnson’s within-Guidelines sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable.
In accordance with 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. At this
juncture, we also deny counsel’s motion to withdraw from further
representation of Johnson. Rather, this court requires that
counsel inform Johnson, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Johnson requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
4
in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Johnson.
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
5