Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 13-4983
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:13-cr-00116-TMC-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Leroy McMahan, Jr., pled guilty pursuant to a
plea
agreement
obligations,
uttering
in
to
one
count
violation
counterfeit
of
each
18
of
producing
U.S.C.
obligations,
in
471
violation
counterfeit
(2012),
of
18
and
of
U.S.C.
and
found
nonetheless
no
meritorious
indicates
that
issues
McMahan
for
wishes
appeal.
to
Counsel
challenge
his
has
filed
pro
se
supplemental
brief,
in
(1)
properly
calculate
the
extent
of
the
departure;
and
(2)
weapon.
responsive brief.
The
Government
has
declined
to
file
err, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we
review
sentence
for
reasonableness,
using
an
abuse
of
38, 51 (2007).
to
ensure
that
the
procedural error.
(4th
Cir.
calculate
district
committed
no
significant
2008).
(or
court
Procedural
improperly
errors
calculating)
include
the
failing
Guidelines
to
range,
we
review
for
abuse
of
discretion
and
will
reverse
unless the court can conclude that the error was harmless.
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010).
and
only
if,
this
court
finds
the
sentence
If,
procedurally
by
discern
the
no
district
procedural
court.
or
Most
substantive
sentencing
notably,
review
of
months
in
prison,
3
including
properly
increasing
McMahans
offense
level
two
levels,
pursuant
to
USSG
2B5.1(b)(4) (2012), because he was in possession of a sawedoff shotgun at the time of his arrest.
The
opportunity
sentence
district
to
present
under
opportunity
to
court
the
afforded
argument
3553(a)
allocute,
and
counsel
regarding
factors,
ultimately
an
an
adequate
appropriate
gave
McMahan
sentenced
McMahan
an
to
imposed
an
upward
departure
sentence
The district
based
on
the
We
that
the
district
courts
explanation
for
Thus, we
McMahans
See Carter,
564 F.3d at 328 ([T]he district court must state in open court
the particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence and set
forth
enough
to
satisfy
the
appellate
court
that
he
has
his
own
legal
decisionmaking
authority)
(internal
obligations
under
Anders
and
have
found
no
meritorious
the
right
to
petition
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
Court
and
AFFIRMED