UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4844
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESSIE SHORT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00681-PMD-1)
Submitted: February 15, 2011 Decided: March 17, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher L. Murphy, STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, LLC, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Dean Hodge Secor I, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jessie Short appeals the 31-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to one count of manufacturing
counterfeit currency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471 (2006).
Counsel for Short has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. Short has
filed a pro se supplemental brief, contending that police
searched his residence without a search warrant, and that the
district court should have granted him a more generous
departure. We affirm.
Counsel challenges Short’s sentence, but does not
specify any deficiencies. We review a sentence imposed by a
district court under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010). We begin by
reviewing the sentence for significant procedural error,
including such errors as “failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines 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 — including an explanation for any deviation from the
2
Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If there are no
procedural errors, we then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality
of the circumstances. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597
F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
“When rendering a sentence, the district court ‘must
make an individualized assessment based on the facts
presented.’” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th
Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (emphasis omitted).
Accordingly, a sentencing court must apply the relevant
§ 3553(a) factors to the particular facts presented and must
“‘state in open court’” the particular reasons that support its
chosen sentence. Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(c) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2010)). The court’s explanation need not be exhaustive;
it must be “sufficient ‘to satisfy the appellate court that the
district court has considered the parties’ arguments and has a
reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking
authority.’” United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th
Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356
(2007)) (alterations omitted).
We conclude that the sentence imposed by the district
court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The
district court granted the Government’s motion to depart based
on Short’s substantial assistance, and thus Short’s sentence was
3
below the properly-calculated Guidelines range. Based on our
review of the record, we find that the sentence was reasonable
given the totality of the circumstances. Finally, we reject the
claims raised in Short’s pro se supplemental brief as meritless.
In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire
record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Short, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Short
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 Short. 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