United States v. McLaurin

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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