UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4300
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JACKIE CLARK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00035-RLV-DCK-14)
Submitted: September 25, 2012 Decided: October 10, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John J. Cacheris, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN J. CACHERIS, P.C.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jackie Clark appeals the 240-month downward variant
sentence imposed upon him after the disposition of his initial
direct appeal, in which we affirmed his convictions but vacated
his sentence and remanded his case to the district court for
resentencing in light of United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237
(4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Clark’s counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which
he states that he could identify no meritorious issues for
appeal, but questions whether the district court properly
designated Clark as a career offender.
This Court reviews a sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We first ensure that the
district court committed no significant procedural error, “such
as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)] factors, selecting
a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to
adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. If no procedural
error was committed, we review the sentence for substantive
reasonableness, taking into account the “totality of the
circumstances.” Id. A sentence that falls within or below a
properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
2
reasonable. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir.
2012).
As Clark’s counsel correctly observes, the district
court did not err in designating Clark as a career offender,
because both of his predicate convictions were felony crimes of
violence resulting in Clark’s incarceration less than fifteen
years prior to his commencement of the instant offenses. See
United States v. Thompson, 588 F.3d 197, 202 (4th Cir. 2009);
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 4A1.2(k)(2)(A), 4B1.A(a),
4B1.2 cmt. n.1. Likewise, our review of the record convinces us
that Clark’s sentence is otherwise reasonable. We discern no
error with respect to the district court’s computation of the
applicable Guidelines range, the opportunities the court
provided Clark and his counsel to speak in mitigation, or the
court’s explanation of the sentence imposed by reference to the
factors enumerated in § 3553(a). Nor does the record
demonstrate any reason to disturb the presumptive substantive
reasonability of Clark’s below-Guidelines sentence. Susi, 674
F.3d at 289.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
This Court requires that counsel inform Clark, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
3
further review. If Clark 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 Clark. 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