UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4585
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTWAIN JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-00948-RBH-1)
Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 25, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
T. Micah Leddy, THE LEDDY LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina;
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antwain Johnson pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and more than
fifty grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2006). The district court sentenced Johnson to a 246-month
sentence, subtracting sixteen months from the lowest advisory
Guidelines sentence to reflect time served in state prison. His
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 asking the court to review the reasonableness of
the sentence. Johnson was informed of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief, but he did not do so. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
Johnson’s presentence investigation report (“PSR”)
properly placed him in criminal history category V. Prior to
the sentencing hearing, Johnson agreed to withdraw his
objections to the PSR and motion for a variance sentence in
exchange for a negotiated base offense level of thirty-six and
an adjusted offense level of thirty-five, which the district
court adopted. The district court afforded counsel an
opportunity to argue regarding an appropriate sentence, afforded
Johnson an opportunity to allocute, considered the relevant 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, and sufficiently explained its
rationale for imposing Johnson’s particular sentence. See
2
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009)
(recognizing that district court “must place on the record an
individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the
case before it” and that “individualized assessment . . . must
provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and
adequate to permit meaningful appellate review”) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Johnson has failed to rebut our
presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable.
See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Johnson. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007) (providing standard).
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. 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 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
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4