Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-04456/USCOURTS-ca4-06-04456-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lawrence W. Nelson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4456

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LAWRENCE W. NELSON, a/k/a Zikee,

Defendant - Appellant.

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.

(S. Ct. No. 07-7380)

Submitted: April 23, 2008 Decided: May 9, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher A. Davis, DAVIS LAW OFFICES, Clarksburg, West Virginia,

for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, Zelda E.

Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-4456 Doc: 62 Filed: 05/09/2008 Pg: 1 of 5
*

In the prior appeal, Nelson also challenged his conviction on

several grounds. We reinstate our prior opinion affirming his

conviction. See Nelson, 237 F. App’x at 820-21.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

This case is before us on remand from the United States

Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Rita v. United

States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007). In United States v. Nelson, 237 F.

App’x 819 (4th Cir. 2007), vacated, 128 S. Ct. 1124 (2008), we

affirmed Lawrence W. Nelson’s 360-month sentence imposed by the

district court after a jury convicted Nelson of conspiracy to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than fifty

grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000).

After reviewing Nelson’s appeal in light of Rita, we affirm.*

In Rita, the Supreme Court held that “a court of appeals

may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court

sentence that reflects a proper application of the Sentencing

Guidelines.” 127 S. Ct. at 2462. The Court stressed “that the

presumption . . . is an appellate court presumption.” Id. at 2465.

Importantly, “the sentencing court does not enjoy the benefit of a

legal presumption that the Guidelines sentence should apply.” Id.

In sentencing a defendant after United States v. Booker,

543 U.S. 220 (2005), a district court must engage in a multi-step

process. First, the court must correctly calculate the appropriate

advisory guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586,

596 (2007) (citing Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2465). The court then must

Appeal: 06-4456 Doc: 62 Filed: 05/09/2008 Pg: 2 of 5
- 3 -

consider that range in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18

U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). Id. The court “may

not presume that the Guidelines range is reasonable” but, rather,

“must make an individualized assessment based on the facts

presented” in determining an appropriate sentence. Id. at 596-97.

The district court also must “adequately explain the chosen

sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review.” Id. at 597.

Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a

sentence is for abuse of discretion. Id.; see also United

States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). The appellate

court:

must 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 § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence

based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to

adequately explain the chosen sentence--including an

explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.

Assuming that the district court’s sentencing decision is

procedurally sound, the appellate court should then

consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence

imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. When

conducting this review, the court will, of course, take

into account the totality of the circumstances, including

the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.

Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597.

Here, Nelson asserts that the district court applied the

guidelines in a mandatory fashion. He relies on the district

court’s statement at sentencing “that ‘the guidelines are advisory

but under the case law of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals . . .

Appeal: 06-4456 Doc: 62 Filed: 05/09/2008 Pg: 3 of 5
- 4 -

the Guidelines are considered presumptively reasonable . . . . That

means that unless there’s a good reason in the factors that I just

reviewed with you, the Guideline sentence is the reasonable

sentence . . . .’”

Although Nelson asserts that the district court treated

the guidelines as mandatory, we find, taking the district court’s

comments at sentencing as a whole, the court did not do so. See

United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218-20 (4th Cir. 2008). As in

Go, the district court in Nelson’s case understood that the

guidelines were advisory and that it could impose a sentence

outside of the guidelines range. For example, the district court

considered the arguments from Nelson and his witnesses, the

advisory guideline range, and the factors in § 3553(a), noting that

Nelson was convicted of a crack offense, was a leader in the

offense, possessed a firearm, had a significant criminal history,

and had made laudable efforts at self-rehabilitation. Given the

circumstances of Nelson’s case, however, the district court

exercised its discretion not to vary from the advisory guideline

range and decided to impose a sentence at the bottom of the range.

We therefore find that the district court did not procedurally err

in sentencing Nelson. See Go, 517 F.3d at 218-20.

Accordingly, we affirm the 360-month sentence imposed by

the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

Appeal: 06-4456 Doc: 62 Filed: 05/09/2008 Pg: 4 of 5
- 5 -

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 06-4456 Doc: 62 Filed: 05/09/2008 Pg: 5 of 5