Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04401/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04401-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joe Joyner
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4401

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOE JOYNER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:06-cr-00123-H-ALL)

Submitted: February 27, 2008 Decided: March 10, 2008

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4401 Doc: 33 Filed: 03/10/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM: 

Joe Clinton Joyner pleaded guilty to two counts of bank

robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). On appeal

Joyner contends his 156-month sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district

courts for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion

standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). When

sentencing a defendant, a district court must: (1) properly

calculate the guidelines range; (2) determine whether a sentence

within that range serves the factors set out in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a); (3) implement mandatory statutory limitations; and

(4) explain its reasons for selecting a sentence. United States v.

Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

2309 (2006). A sentence within a correctly calculated advisory

guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v.

Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

2054 (2006); Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007)

(upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines

sentence).

Our review of the record reveals no procedural or

substantive error with respect to Joyner’s 156-month sentence. The

sentencing court followed the required steps in sentencing Joyner:

(1) it properly calculated the guidelines range; (2) allowed both

parties an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deemed

Appeal: 07-4401 Doc: 33 Filed: 03/10/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

appropriate; and (3) considered the § 3553(a) factors. See Gall,

128 S. Ct. at 596-97. The court considered counsel’s argument that

it should take into account in sentencing Joyner the fact that his

IQ is 68, in the mild mental retardation range. Moreover, Joyner

did not request a sentence outside of the guidelines, or a

particular sentence within the range. Under these circumstances,

Joyner cannot overcome the presumptive reasonableness of his

sentence within the guidelines range.

Accordingly, we affirm Joyner’s sentence. 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

Appeal: 07-4401 Doc: 33 Filed: 03/10/2008 Pg: 3 of 3