UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4596

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KAMARIO EMMANUEL PALMER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00125-NCT-1)

Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 3, 2010

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kamario Emmanuel Palmer pled guilty, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a 

convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and was sentenced 

to 64 months imprisonment. Palmer’s attorney 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 Palmer’s sentence is reasonable. Although advised of 

his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Palmer has not 

done so.

We review the district court’s sentencing decision for 

abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 

(2007). In conducting this review, we must first examine the 

sentence for “significant procedural error, such as failing to 

calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, 

treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 

[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence 

based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately 

explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51. When “rendering a 

sentence, the district court must make an individualized 

assessment based on the facts presented,” applying the “relevant 

§ 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances of the case 

before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th 

Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). The 
3

district court must also “state in open court the particular 

reasons supporting its chosen sentence” and “set forth enough to 

satisfy” this court that it has “considered the parties' 

arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own 

legal decisionmaking authority.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). The district court, however, is not required to 

“robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.” United 

States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).

If the sentence is free of procedural error, we then 

consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking 

into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. 

at 51. If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines 

range, this court applies a presumption on appeal that the 

sentence is reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 

338, 347 (2007).

We conclude that the district court did not commit 

procedural or substantive error in sentencing Palmer. The 

district court properly calculated and treated as advisory the 

Guidelines’ imprisonment range of 57-71 months. The court heard 

argument from the parties on the appropriate sentence and gave 

Palmer an opportunity to allocute. The court considered the 

relevant § 3553(a) factors, addressing on the record the nature 

and circumstances of the offense, Palmer’s history and 

characteristics, and the need for the sentence to protect the 
4

public. Further, neither counsel nor Palmer offers any grounds 

to rebut the presumption on appeal that the within-Guidelines 

sentence of 64 months’ imprisonment is reasonable.

As required by Anders, we have reviewed the record in 

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

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Palmer, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Palmer 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 Palmer.

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