United States v. McArthur

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4384

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WIL KARIM MCARTHUR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00183-JAB-1)

Submitted: February 23, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amy Lee Copeland, AMY LEE COPELAND, LLC, Savannah, Georgia, for
Appellant. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States Attorney,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Wil Karim McArthur pled guilty to nine counts of

interference with interstate commerce by threats of violence, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2006), and one count of

brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of

violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2006).

The district court sentenced McArthur to a 174-month sentence,

composed of nine concurrent 90-month sentences on the robbery

counts and a single mandatory minimum consecutive 84-month

sentence for brandishing a firearm. Counsel has filed a brief

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

stating there are no meritorious issues for appeal but

questioning the adequacy of the district court’s explanation for

the selected sentence. McArthur was advised of his right to

file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Appellate review of a sentence, “whether inside, just

outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” is for

abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41

(2007). This review requires consideration of both the

procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. at

51. This court must assess whether the district court properly

calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments

2
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the

selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see also United States v.

Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized

explanation must accompany every sentence.”); United States v.

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). We may presume a

sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range

is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th

Cir. 2007).

The district court properly calculated the advisory

Guidelines range, afforded counsel an opportunity to argue

regarding an appropriate sentence, afforded McArthur an

opportunity to allocute, and considered the relevant § 3553(a)

factors. The district court, however, did not sufficiently

explain its rationale for imposing McArthur’s particular

sentence. Although the district court committed error that was

plain, see Lynn, 592 F.3d at 577 (stating standard of review),

we conclude that the error did not affect McArthur’s substantial

rights. The district court sentenced McArthur, as requested, to

the low end of the properly calculated Guidelines range. See

id. at 580. With regard to the substantive reasonableness of

McArthur’s sentence, McArthur has failed to rebut the

presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable.

See Allen, 491 F.3d at 193.

3
 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 McArthur, in writing, of the right

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If McArthur 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 McArthur. 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