UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4171
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAMMY HARDISON SHINE, a/k/a Shine,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:08-cr-00367-TLW-2)
Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: March 10, 2011
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Wesley Locklair, III, LOCKLAIR & LOCKLAIR, P.C., Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sammy Hardison Shine pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute fifty
grams or more of crack cocaine and five kilograms or more of
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006).
The district court sentenced Shine to 210 months’ imprisonment.
Shine’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating his opinion that there are no
meritorious issue for appeal but raising the issue of whether
the district court erred in denying Shine’s motion for a
variance. Shine was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has not done so. The Government has
declined to file a responsive brief. We affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). This review requires appellate
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. After determining whether
the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory
Guidelines range, this court considers whether the district
court considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 346-47 (2007); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325,
2
330 (4th Cir. 2009). Finally, this court reviews the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “taking into account
the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any
variance from the Guideline range.” United States v. Pauley,
511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
In evaluating the sentencing court’s explanation of a
selected sentence, this court has consistently held that, while
the district court must consider the statutory factors and
explain the sentence, it need not explicitly refer to § 3553(a)
or discuss every factor on the record, particularly when the
court imposes a sentence within the properly calculated advisory
Guidelines range. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345
(4th Cir. 2006). At the same time, the district court “must
make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. The reasons articulated by the district
court for a given sentence need not be “couched in the precise
language of § 3553(a),” so long as the “reasons can be matched
to a factor appropriate for consideration . . . and [are]
clearly tied [to the defendant’s] particular situation.” United
States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 658 (4th Cir. 2007).
In this case, after properly calculating the
Guidelines range, the district court sufficiently explained the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors it had considered and their
3
relation to Shine. The court adequately explained its denial of
Shine’s motion for a variance. Accordingly, the district
court’s sentence was procedurally reasonable. Moreover,
considering the totality of the circumstances, the district
court’s sentence was also substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
This court requires that counsel inform Shine, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Shine 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 Shine.
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