UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4707
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VINCENT SUMPTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-00246-FL-1)
Submitted: April 6, 2012 Decided: April 13, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Sumpter was convicted of several offenses
resulting from a conspiracy to commit robbery and firearm
possession. In United States v. Sumpter, No. 06-4814, 2011 WL
1320206 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2011) (unpublished), this court
affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing. We
directed the district court to make an individualized assessment
prior to ordering the sentence, citing Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38 (2007), and United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325
(4th Cir. 2009), and to make the required findings relative to
Sumpter’s ability to pay a fine. At resentencing, the court
announced the properly calculated Guidelines, heard from the
parties regarding the appropriate sentence and then imposed the
same sentence. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there were
no meritorious arguments for appeal but raising on behalf of
Sumpter the harshness of the sentence. Sumpter has filed a pro
se supplemental brief raising three issues. The Government did
not file a brief. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381,
387 (4th Cir. 2010). This review requires appellate
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
2
reasonableness of a sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In
determining procedural reasonableness, this court considers
whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s
advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties,
and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.
“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
facts of the case before it.” Carter, 564 F.3d at 330 (internal
quotation marks omitted). 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 legal decisionmaking
authority.’” United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th
Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356
(2007)) (alterations in original). If the court finds “no
significant procedural error,” it next assesses the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, taking “‘into account the
totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any
variance from the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Morace,
594 F.3d 340, 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at
51).
3
We conclude that the district court provided a
sufficient individualized assessment prior to ordering the
sentence. The court noted Sumpter’s criminal history, the
offense conduct, the harm to the victims, Sumpter’s propensity
to commit more offenses, the need to protect the public, and
Sumpter’s own admission that he was too lazy to work. The court
found that despite the fact that Sumpter had an extensive
criminal history there was nothing in the record to indicate
that he would slow down his criminal conduct. Rather, the court
noted that Sumpter’s conduct became more violent as time passed. 1
We have considered the issues Sumpter raises in his
pro se brief and find no merit. Insofar as Sumpter challenges
his convictions, we note that those issues are foreclosed from
review because the convictions were previously affirmed.
Sumpter’s challenge to the court’s decision to base the offense
level in part on acquitted conduct is without merit. See United
States v. Grubbs, 585 F.3d 793, 798-99 (4th Cir. 2009). 2
1
With regard to whether the district court considered
Sumpter’s ability to pay a fine, at resentencing the court
declined to order a fine.
2
In the Anders brief, counsel notes that the special
conditions of supervised release listed in the amended judgment
did not conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. We note
that those conditions were part of the original judgment and
were not challenged on appeal. Accordingly, we are without
jurisdiction to give those special conditions further
(Continued)
4
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Sumpter’s sentence. This court requires
that counsel inform Sumpter, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Sumpter 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 Sumpter. 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
consideration. See United States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 117-
18 (4th Cir. 1998).
5