United States v. Coleman

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-5226

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

RAYON ANTHONY COLEMAN,

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-00485-RBH-3)

Submitted: January 31, 2011 Decided: February 23, 2011

Before SHEDD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey M. Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, P.S.C., Covington,
Kentucky, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Rayon Anthony Coleman was found guilty by a jury of

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or

more of cocaine (Count 1) and possession with intent to

distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine (Count 2). He was

sentenced to ninety-seven months of imprisonment on each count

to run concurrently. On appeal, Coleman raises two sentencing

issues: (1) whether the district court erred by failing to grant

him a two-level downward adjustment because he was a “minor

participant” under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)

§ 3B1.2(b) (2009); and (2) whether his sentence was unreasonable

and greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West

2000 & Supp. 2010). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

First, we review the denial of a downward adjustment

pursuant to USSG § 3B1.2 for clear error. United States v.

Pratt, 239 F.3d 640, 646 (4th Cir. 2001) (providing standard).

A defendant seeking a mitigating adjustment under § 3B1.2 bears

the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he

is entitled to the adjustment, United States v. Akinkoye, 185

F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Palinkas, 938

F.2d 456, 460 (4th Cir. 1991), judgment vacated on other grounds

by, Kochekian v. United States, 503 U.S. 931 (1992), op.

reinstated by, United States v. Kochekian, 977 F.2d 905 (4th

Cir. 1992), and we find no clear error in the district court’s

2
determination that Coleman failed to show he was a minor

participant.

Second, Coleman alleges that his sentence was greater

than necessary and therefore unreasonable. After United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review a sentence for

reasonableness using a “deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). We

find that Coleman’s sentence was reasonable. The court

correctly calculated Coleman’s advisory sentencing range,

reviewed the § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced him within that

range. We apply a presumption of reasonableness on appeal to a

within-Guidelines sentence. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.

338, 347 (2007); United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th

Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, we affirm. 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