UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4062
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUSTIN DAVID CRENSHAW,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:10-cr-00545-GRA-1)
Submitted: August 24, 2011 Decided: September 1, 2011
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Justin David Crenshaw pled guilty to possession of a
firearm after being convicted of a felony, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting no
meritorious issues for appeal exist but asking the court to
review the reasonableness of Crenshaw’s sentence. Crenshaw was
informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, but
has not done so. The Government declined to file a brief. We
affirm.
Appellate courts review a sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The court reviews first the
reasonableness of the process by which the sentencing court
arrived at its decision and then reviews the reasonableness of
the sentence itself. Id. In determining the procedural
reasonableness of a sentence, this Court considers whether the
district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, treated
the Guidelines as advisory, considered the § 3553(a) factors,
analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at
51. “Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above,
below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on the
record an individualized assessment based on the particular
2
facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Crenshaw preserved his claims of error “[b]y drawing arguments
from § 3553 for a sentence different than the one ultimately
imposed.” United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir.
2010). Thus, any error must lead to reversal unless the error
was harmless. Id. at 581, 585.
Here, although the district court correctly calculated
the offense level for Crenshaw as an armed career criminal, the
court erred by calculating the Guidelines range according to the
statutory maximum of 120 months applicable to a § 922(g) offense
rather than the mandatory minimum 180 months applicable to
Crenshaw as an armed career criminal. Compare 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(a)(2) (2006) (maximum sentence of ten years for violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) with 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (fifteen-year
minimum for violations of § 922 by defendant convicted of three
violent felonies). Nevertheless, the error was harmless because
Crenshaw in fact received a windfall on account of it. ∗ Lynn,
592 F.3d at 585.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
∗
Because the Government has not sought review of the
district court’s sentencing error, we decline to recognize the
error sua sponte.
3
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Crenshaw, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Crenshaw 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 Crenshaw. 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