UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4714
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BRANDON LASHAWN MCLAURIN,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Thomas D.
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00334-TDS-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 5, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milton B. Shoaf, Jr., ADDISON & SHOAF, Salisbury, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Lashawn McLaurin appeals his 262-month
sentence after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to
one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base,
in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (West 1999 &
Supp. 2010), and one count of possession of firearms in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Counsel
has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), indicating that he has examined the record and
found no meritorious grounds for appeal, but indicating that
McLaurin wishes to challenge whether the district court
adequately considered the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2010) factors before imposing his sentence. McLaurin has
not filed a pro se supplemental brief despite receiving notice
that he may do so, and the Government declined to file a
responsive brief. Finding no error, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
this court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, using an abuse
of discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires
the court to ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d
155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include “failing to
2
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range,
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
§ 3553(a) 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
Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
If, and only if, this court finds the sentence
procedurally reasonable can the court consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed. United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). We presume that a
sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable. See United
States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
McLaurin’s presentence investigation report (“PSR”)
properly calculated his total offense level at thirty-one and
appropriately placed him in criminal history category VI,
yielding a Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months. The district
court adopted the PSR’s factual findings and calculations at
sentencing, afforded counsel an opportunity to argue regarding
an appropriate sentence, afforded McLaurin an opportunity to
allocute, considered the § 3553(a) factors before imposing
McLaurin’s sentence, and thoroughly explained its rationale for
imposing McLaurin’s particular sentence. See Carter, 564 F.3d
at 330 (recognizing that the district court must “place on the
record an individualized assessment based on the particular
3
facts of the case before it” and that the “individualized
assessment . . . must provide a rationale tailored to the
particular case at hand and [be] adequate to permit meaningful
appellate review”) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). Because this court presumes McLaurin’s
within-Guidelines sentence is correct, and since McLaurin has
presented no evidence to rebut this presumption, we affirm
McLaurin’s 262-month sentence. See Allen, 491 F.3d at 193.
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 McLaurin, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If McLaurin requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on McLaurin. 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