Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04311/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04311-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bobby Samuel Arnold
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4311

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BOBBY SAMUEL ARNOLD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cr-00135-RJC-DCK-2)

Submitted: December 27, 2019 Decided: January 9, 2020

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John J. Cacheris, PLUMIDES, ROMANO, JOHNSON & CACHERIS, PC, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4311 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/09/2020 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Samuel Arnold appeals the 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty 

plea, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to 

distribute at least 28 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(B), 846 (2018), and to distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine 

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious 

issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court reversibly erred in calculating 

Arnold’s criminal history. Arnold was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental 

brief, but he has not done so. The Government elected not to file a brief and does not seek 

to enforce the appeal waiver in Arnold’s plea agreement.* We affirm.

We review Arnold’s sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007). This review entails 

appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the 

sentence. Id. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the 

district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory sentencing range under the 

Sentencing Guidelines, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate 

sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2018) factors, and sufficiently explained the 

 * Because the Government fails to assert the appeal waiver as a bar to this appeal, 

we may consider the issues raised by counsel and conduct an independent review of the 

record pursuant to Anders. See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir.

2007).

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4311 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/09/2020 Pg: 2 of 4
3

selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If there are no procedural errors, we then consider the 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” 

Id. at 51. A sentence is presumptively reasonable if it is within the Guidelines range, and 

this “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when 

measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 

295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

Here, the record establishes that Arnold’s sentence is procedurally and substantively 

reasonable. The district court properly calculated Arnold’s offense level, criminal history 

category, and advisory Guidelines range. We find no merit to Arnold’s claim that the 

district court erred in calculating the criminal history points for his probation revocation 

sentences. The district court correctly applied U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 4A1.2(k) (2016), and Application Note 11 and counted Arnold’s probation revocation 

sentences separately. We reject Arnold’s suggestion that Application Note 11 conflicts 

with USSG § 4A1.2(a). See United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 441 (4th Cir 2016). 

(“[T]his court rarely invalidates part of the commentary as inconsistent with the Guidelines 

text.”). The court afforded the parties adequate opportunities to make arguments about an

appropriate sentence and heard argument from counsel and allocution from Arnold. After 

properly considering these matters, Arnold’s advisory Guidelines range, and relevant 

§ 3553(a) factors, the district court thoroughly explained its denial of Arnold’s request for 

a downward variance and its reasons for imposing a within-Guidelines sentence. Arnold 

provides no grounds to overcome the presumption of reasonableness of his sentence. 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4311 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/09/2020 Pg: 3 of 4
4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no 

meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the criminal judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Arnold, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court 

of the United States for further review. If Arnold 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 Arnold. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4311 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/09/2020 Pg: 4 of 4