UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5133
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BRADLEY MAURICE JAMES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00050-F-2)
Submitted: June 15, 2012 Decided: July 20, 2012
Before DAVIS and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jorgelina E. Araneda, ARANEDA LAW FIRM, PC, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney,
Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Bradley Maurice James of one count of
possession with intent to distribute more than fifty kilograms
of marijuana, and aiding and abetting the same, 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and one count of possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c). Following these convictions, the district court
sentenced James to 123 months’ imprisonment. James noted a
timely appeal, and, in July 2011, we affirmed his convictions,
vacated his sentence, and remanded his case for resentencing,
because the district court failed to offer any explanation for
its chosen sentence. On remand, James once again was sentenced
to 123 months’ imprisonment. He noted a timely appeal. We
affirm.
James challenges the procedural reasonableness of the
sentence imposed by the district court on remand. We review a
sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness “under
a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “We review factual findings for
clear error, and legal conclusions de novo.” United States v.
Davis, 679 F.3d 177, 2012 WL 1608607, at *4 (4th Cir. May 9,
2012).
Our appellate review entails consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
- 2 -
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness,
we consider whether the district court properly calculated the
defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines
as mandatory, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
or failed to explain sufficiently the selected sentence. Id. at
49–51. “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
facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
James contends that the district court failed to state
individualized reasons for the sentence imposed on the
possession with intent to distribute more than fifty kilograms
of marijuana count of conviction. In making this contention,
James acknowledges that the district court “did make some
statements about [him] and his background . . . , [but] it was
still insufficient and did not meet the standard required by the
Fourth Circuit.” Appellant’s Br. at 59.
The “individualized assessment need not be elaborate or
lengthy, but it must provide a rationale tailored to the
particular case at hand and adequate to permit ‘meaningful
appellate review.’” Carter, 564 F.3d at 330 (quoting Gall, 552
U.S. at 51). At resentencing, the district court noted that
- 3 -
James possessed a large quantity of marijuana and possessed a
firearm in conjunction with drug trafficking. The district
court also noted that James had no meaningful employment
history, yet he possessed a vehicle worth approximately
$30,000.00 for which he put approximately $8,000.00 down. The
district court explained that the lack of employment and the
cost of the vehicle meant that James had been “involved in the
drug business for quite some time.” (J.A. 410). Additionally,
based on witness trial testimony, the district court found that
James was a “big dealer,” (J.A. 411), warranting a higher
sentence. The district court’s comments and findings on the
factors influencing sentencing are sufficient to permit
meaningful appellate review. The district court considered
James’ arguments for a lower sentence, but simply rejected them
in favor of a sentence at the high-end of the Guidelines range.
Accordingly, the sentence is procedurally reasonable. ∗
∗
James also raises an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim on appeal. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim
generally should be raised in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in
the district court. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192,
198 (4th Cir. 1999). Although an ineffective assistance claim
may be cognizable on direct appeal if “it conclusively appears
from the record that defense counsel did not provide effective
representation,” id. (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted), it does not conclusively appear on the record that
counsel provided ineffective representation. Accordingly, the
ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not cognizable in
this appeal.
- 4 -
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
- 5 -