Court Opinion

ID: 9881332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-30 21:00:29.152496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:08:21.563873
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4486      Doc: 23         Filed: 09/29/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4486

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TRAVIS DEVON COLSON, a/k/a Swift,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cr-00013-TDS-1)

        Submitted: August 28, 2023                                  Decided: September 29, 2023

        Before RICHARDSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Thomas M. King, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett
        Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Craig Matthew Principe, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4486      Doc: 23          Filed: 09/29/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Travis Devon Colson pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to being

        a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The

        district court sentenced Colson to 60 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Colson’s

        counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that

        there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of Colson’s

        sentence. Colson has not filed a pro se supplemental brief despite being notified of his

        right to do so. Finding no error, we affirm.

               We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-

        discretion standard.” United States v. Williams, 5 F.4th 500, 505 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

        142 S. Ct. 625 (2021). “[W]e must first ensure that the district court committed no

        significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the [Sentencing] Guidelines

        range, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain

        the chosen sentence.”     Id.   (internal quotation marks omitted).      “If the sentence is

        procedurally sound, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking

        into account the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. McCain, 974 F.3d 506,

        515 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Where, as here, the sentence is

        outside the advisory Guidelines range, we must consider whether the sentencing court acted

        reasonably both with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to

        the extent of the divergence from the sentencing range.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d

        204, 215 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing an upward

        variance, this court “may consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due deference

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4486         Doc: 23        Filed: 09/29/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        to the district court’s decision that the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the

        extent of the variance.” Id. at 212 (internal quotation marks omitted).

               During the sentencing hearing, the district court accurately calculated Colson’s

        advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, accorded Colson an opportunity to argue for an

        appropriate sentence, addressed Colson’s and the Government’s sentencing arguments,

        considered the §3553(a) factors, and adequately explained the chosen sentence. Despite

        considering the mitigating factors argued by Colson, the court concluded that an upward

        variance of 14 months was necessary to protect the public and deter Colson from further

        criminal conduct. Based on the factors identified by the district court, along with our

        review of the record, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by imposing

        an upward-variant sentence. See Nance, 957 F.3d at 212, 215.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

        This court requires that counsel inform Colson, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Colson 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 Colson.

               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.

                                                                                          DISMISSED

                                                       3