UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5068
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND LEO THOMPSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00293-TDS-1)
Submitted: July 18, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Tinney, Jr., THE TINNEY LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Leon Thompson appeals his conviction and 215-
month sentence for one count of carjacking in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2119(1) (2006), and one count of possession of
ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2006). Counsel has filed a brief in this
court pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questioning whether Thompson’s sentence was reasonable.
An appellate court reviews a sentence for
reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Id. First, the court must assess
whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines
range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see 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) (same). An extensive explanation
is not required as long as the appellate court is satisfied
“‘that [the district court] has considered the parties’
arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own
2
legal decisionmaking authority.’” United States v. Engle, 592
F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir.) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 356 (2007)), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 165 (2010).
By seeking a sentence below his advisory Guidelines
range, Thompson has preserved appellate review of his sentence.
See Lynn, 592 F.3d at 577-78. We first conclude that the
sentence was procedurally reasonable. The district court
properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range of 188 to 235
months, and discussed the serious nature of Thompson’s conduct.
The court was particularly concerned that Thompson brandished a
firearm at two small children and threatened a woman with death
if she did not turn over the keys to her car. The court also
noted Thompson’s lengthy criminal history and concluded that a
215-month sentence was necessary to protect the public from this
habitual offender.
We also conclude that the court imposed a
substantively reasonable sentence. We presume on appeal that a
sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is
reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.
2007). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Thompson
has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness accorded his
within-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
3
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. This
court requires that counsel inform Thompson, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Thompson 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 Thompson.
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