UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4062

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JUSTIN DAVID CRENSHAW,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:10-cr-00545-GRA-1)

Submitted: August 24, 2011 Decided: September 1, 2011

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Justin David Crenshaw pled guilty to possession of a 

firearm after being convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California

Appellate courts review a sentence for reasonableness, 

applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The court reviews first the 

reasonableness of the process by which the sentencing court 

arrived at its decision and then reviews the reasonableness of 

the sentence itself. Id. In determining the procedural 

reasonableness of a sentence, this Court considers whether the 

district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, treated 

the Guidelines as advisory, considered the § 3553(a) factors, 

analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and 

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

51. “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 

, 368 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting no

meritorious issues for appeal exist but asking the court to 

review the reasonableness of Crenshaw’s sentence. Crenshaw was 

informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, but 

has not done so. The Government declined to file a brief. We 

affirm.
3

facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 

325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Crenshaw preserved his claims of error “[b]y drawing arguments 

from § 3553 for a sentence different than the one ultimately 

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

2010). Thus, any error must lead to reversal unless the error 

was harmless. Id. at 581, 585.

Here, although the district court correctly calculated 

the offense level for Crenshaw as an armed career criminal, the 

court erred by calculating the Guidelines range according to the 

statutory maximum of 120 months applicable to a § 922(g) offense 

rather than the mandatory minimum 180 months applicable to 

Crenshaw as an armed career criminal. Compare 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(a)(2) (2006) (maximum sentence of ten years for violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) with 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (fifteen-year 

minimum for violations of § 922 by defendant convicted of three 

violent felonies). Nevertheless, the error was harmless because 

Crenshaw in fact received a windfall on account of it.∗

 Lynn

Pursuant to 

, 

592 F.3d at 585.

Anders

 ∗ Because the Government has not sought review of the 

district court’s sentencing error, we decline to recognize the 

error sua sponte.

, we have reviewed the entire record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 
4

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Crenshaw, in writing, of the right 

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If Crenshaw 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 Crenshaw. 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