Court Opinion

ID: 9402495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 21:01:12.828622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:00.323117
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4426      Doc: 45         Filed: 06/14/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4426

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        LEMONT JERRONE WEBB, a/k/a L. Dawg, a/k/a Mont,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers II, Chief District Judge. (5:15-cr-00172-M-1)

        Submitted: May 31, 2023                                           Decided: June 14, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Lynne Louise Reid, L. L. REID LAW, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
        Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4426      Doc: 45         Filed: 06/14/2023       Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               In 2018, a jury convicted Lemont Jerrone Webb of multiple criminal offenses

        related to drug trafficking and money laundering. The district court sentenced him to life

        imprisonment. Webb appealed, and we affirmed his convictions, vacated his sentence as

        procedurally unreasonable, and remanded for resentencing. See United States v. Webb,

        965 F.3d 262, 265-72 (4th Cir. 2020).        On remand, the district court conducted a

        resentencing hearing and imposed a 360-month sentence of imprisonment and a five-year

        term of supervised release.

               Webb now appeals from the amended criminal judgment entered on remand.

        Webb’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

        stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Webb’s

        sentence is substantively reasonable.      Webb has filed a pro se supplemental brief

        challenging his convictions. The Government has declined to file a response. We affirm.

               Webb argues in his pro se brief that the district court erred in admitting evidence of

        his prior state court convictions for drug-related offenses and that the Double Jeopardy

        Clause was implicated because he was tried and convicted for the same offenses in state

        court. Webb raised these claims in his first appeal, and we rejected them. See Webb, 965

        F.3d at 265-72. Accordingly, the mandate rule forecloses further review of the validity of

        Webb’s convictions. See United States v. Cannady, 63 F.4th 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2023);

        United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

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

        discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4426      Doc: 45         Filed: 06/14/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at

        51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court

        properly calculated the defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an

        opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

        factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If there are no

        procedural errors, then we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,

        evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. A sentence is presumptively

        substantively reasonable if it “is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range,”

        and this “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable

        when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756

        F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

               The district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, allowed Webb to

        allocute, and afforded counsel an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence. After

        considering the parties’ arguments and Webb’s statement, the Guidelines range, and the 18

        U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the court determined that a below-Guidelines 360-month

        sentence was warranted based on the circumstances of Webb’s offense conduct, his history

        and characteristics, and the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the

        offenses, to promote respect for the law, to provide adequate deterrence to criminal

        conduct, and to protect the public from further crimes by Webb.             See 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(C). The district court also explained the mandatory, standard, and

        special conditions of Webb’s five-year term of supervised release. The court’s explanation

        was sufficient to support the imposition of Webb’s below-Guidelines sentence, and Webb

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4426         Doc: 45      Filed: 06/14/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        does not overcome the presumption of reasonableness afforded to it. Webb’s sentence is

        procedurally and substantively reasonable, and we thus discern no abuse of discretion in

        the district court’s imposition of the 360-month prison term.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the amended criminal

        judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Webb, in writing, of the right to petition

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

               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

                                                     4