UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4707

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VINCENT SUMPTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,

Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-00246-FL-1)

Submitted: April 6, 2012 Decided: April 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. MayParker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Sumpter was convicted of several offenses 

resulting from a conspiracy to commit robbery and firearm 

possession. In United States v. Sumpter, No. 06-4814, 2011 WL 

1320206 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2011) (unpublished), this court 

affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing. We 

directed the district court to make an individualized assessment 

prior to ordering the sentence, citing Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38 (2007), and United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 

(4th Cir. 2009), and to make the required findings relative to 

Sumpter’s ability to pay a fine. At resentencing, the court 

announced the properly calculated Guidelines, heard from the 

parties regarding the appropriate sentence and then imposed the 

same sentence. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there were 

no meritorious arguments for appeal but raising on behalf of 

Sumpter the harshness of the sentence. Sumpter has filed a pro 

se supplemental brief raising three issues. The Government did 

not file a brief. We affirm. 

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an 

abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 

387 (4th Cir. 2010). This review requires appellate 

consideration of both the procedural and substantive 
3

reasonableness of a sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In 

determining procedural reasonableness, this court considers 

whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s 

advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, 

and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. 

“Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above, 

below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on the 

record an individualized assessment based on the particular 

facts of the case before it.” Carter, 564 F.3d at 330 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). An extensive explanation is not 

required as long as the appellate court is satisfied “‘that [the 

district court] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a 

reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking 

authority.’” United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th 

Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 

(2007)) (alterations in original). If the court finds “no 

significant procedural error,” it next assesses the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence, taking “‘into account the 

totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any 

variance from the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Morace, 

594 F.3d 340, 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 

51).
4

We conclude that the district court provided a 

sufficient individualized assessment prior to ordering the 

sentence. The court noted Sumpter’s criminal history, the 

offense conduct, the harm to the victims, Sumpter’s propensity 

to commit more offenses, the need to protect the public, and 

Sumpter’s own admission that he was too lazy to work. The court 

found that despite the fact that Sumpter had an extensive 

criminal history there was nothing in the record to indicate 

that he would slow down his criminal conduct. Rather, the court 

noted that Sumpter’s conduct became more violent as time passed.1

We have considered the issues Sumpter raises in his 

pro se brief and find no merit. Insofar as Sumpter challenges 

his convictions, we note that those issues are foreclosed from 

review because the convictions were previously affirmed. 

Sumpter’s challenge to the court’s decision to base the offense 

level in part on acquitted conduct is without merit. See United 

States v. Grubbs, 585 F.3d 793, 798-99 (4th Cir. 2009).2

 1 With regard to whether the district court considered 

Sumpter’s ability to pay a fine, at resentencing the court 

declined to order a fine. 

2 In the Anders brief, counsel notes that the special 

conditions of supervised release listed in the amended judgment 

did not conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. We note 

that those conditions were part of the original judgment and 

were not challenged on appeal. Accordingly, we are without 

jurisdiction to give those special conditions further 

(Continued)
5

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm Sumpter’s sentence. This court requires 

that counsel inform Sumpter, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Sumpter 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 Sumpter. 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

 

consideration. See United States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 117-

18 (4th Cir. 1998).