UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4395

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTIAN JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (4:12-cr-00083-HCM-TEM-1)

Submitted: November 14, 2013 Decided: January 17, 2014

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul G. Watson IV, PAUL G. WATSON IV, PC, Eastville, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Louis Albert Crisostomo, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Howard Jacob Zlotnick, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christian Johnson appeals his convictions and 385-

month sentence imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to one count of interference with commerce by 

robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012), and two counts 

of possessing and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a 

crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). 

On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), because appellant specifically 

desired to appeal his sentence. Counsel acknowledges that 

Johnson was sentenced to the statutory minimum on the firearm 

counts and one month on the robbery count, but questions whether 

the sentence was excessive. Johnson was informed of his right 

to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. 

The Government declined to file a brief.

This court reviews a sentence for procedural and 

substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion 

standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 

same standard applies whether the sentence is “inside, just 

outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range.” United 

States v. Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 100-01 (4th Cir.) 

(internal citation and quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 

133 S. Ct. 274 (2012). In determining procedural 

reasonableness, this court considers whether the district court 
3

properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, 

gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate 

sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, 

selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, and 

sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 

49-51. In reviewing any sentence outside the Guidelines range, 

the appellate court must give due deference to the sentencing 

court’s decision because it has “flexibility in fashioning a 

sentence outside of the Guidelines range,” and need only “set 

forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that it has 

considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis” for 

its decision. United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 364 

(4th Cir. 2011), (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 56); see also United 

States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (sentencing 

court “must make an individualized assessment based on the facts 

presented”) (citation and emphasis omitted).

If the sentence is free of procedural error, the court 

reviews it for substantive reasonableness, taking into account 

the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. This 

court presumes that a sentence within or below a properly 

calculated Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United 

States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012). Moreover, a 

statutorily required sentence is per se reasonable. United 

States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008).
4

In this case, as counsel notes in the Anders brief, 

the district court sentenced Johnson to the statutorily mandated 

sentences of eighty-four and 300 months on the § 924(c) counts, 

which must be consecutive to each other and to the sentence on 

any other count. See Abbott v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 18 

(2010) (sentences for violation of § 924(c) are mandatorily 

consecutive to sentence for any other offenses). On the robbery 

count, the court varied downward from the Guidelines range and 

imposed a sentence of only one month. Johnson does not assert 

any procedural error in the determination of his sentence, and 

our review of the record reveals that the district court 

correctly calculated the Guidelines range on the robbery count 

and determined that consecutive sentences of eighty-four and 300 

months were required on the firearm counts, considered the 

§ 3553(a) factors, and adequately explained its sentence. The 

sentence is thus procedurally reasonable. The sentence is also 

substantively reasonable, as the district court could not have 

imposed less than the statutory mandatory minimum sentences, and 

its sentence on the robbery count is less than two percent of 

the bottom of the Guidelines range on that count. United 

States v. Robinson, 404 F.2d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005) (absent 

government motion for departure for substantial assistance under 

§ 3553(e), district court has no discretion to sentence below 

statutory minimum).
5

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

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

We therefore affirm Johnson’s convictions and sentence. We 

remand to the district court, however, for correction of two 

minor clerical errors in the written judgment. The “nature of 

offense” description of the § 924(c) counts should be amended to 

read “Possessing and Brandishing a Firearm in Furtherance of a 

Crime of Violence,” and the count numbers should be amended to 

reflect that the counts were in a superseding indictment. This 

court requires that counsel inform Johnson, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Johnson 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 Johnson.

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 AND REMANDED