UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4992

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN FORREST HAM, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(6:10-cr-00046-HFF-1)

Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: July 12, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Forrest Ham, Jr., appeals his conviction and 319-

month sentence imposed by the district court following a guilty 

plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and 924(e) 

(2006) (Count One); carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2119(1) (2006) (Count Two); and possession of a firearm during 

and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006). Ham’s counsel has filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California

This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, 

applying an abuse of discretion standard. 

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), finding 

no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the 

reasonableness of Ham’s sentence. Ham filed a pro se 

supplemental brief arguing that the district court erred by 

designating him as an armed career criminal and a career 

offender and by assessing criminal history points for certain 

prior convictions. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

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 

reasonableness of a sentence. Gall

In determining procedural reasonableness, this court 

considers whether the district court properly calculated the 

, 552 U.S. at 51.
3

defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) 

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.” 

 

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 

325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (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.) (quoting Rita v. United 

States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)) (alterations in original), 

cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 165 (2010). 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.) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51), 

cert. denied

Because Ham did not request a sentence different than 

the one ultimately imposed, we review his sentence for plain 

error. 

, 131 S. Ct. 307 (2010).

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578-79 (4th Cir.
4

2010). To establish plain error, Ham “must show: (1) an error 

was made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects 

substantial rights.” United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 

342-43 (4th Cir. 2009). Even if Ham satisfies these 

requirements, “correction of the error remains within [the 

court’s] discretion, which [the court] should not exercise . . . 

unless the error affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Muhammad

With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the 

record and conclude that Ham’s sentence is both procedurally and 

substantively reasonable. In accordance with 

, 

478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). 

Anders

This court requires that counsel inform Ham, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Ham 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 Ham. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

, we have 

reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no 

meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Ham’s 

convictions and sentence. 
5

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED