Court Opinion

ID: 9397896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 21:01:41.243851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.422190
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4586      Doc: 24         Filed: 05/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4586

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        BRANDON ANTHONY COLBERT,

                            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-00015-TDS-1)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                           Decided: May 25, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: William S. Trivette, WILLIAM S. TRIVETTE, ATTORNEY AT LAW,
        PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States
        Attorney, Angela H. Miller, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4586      Doc: 24         Filed: 05/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Brandon Anthony Colbert appeals the 60-month sentence imposed following his

        guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        § 922(g)(1). His sole challenge on appeal concerns the substantive reasonableness of his

        custodial sentence. We affirm.

              We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

        standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). To be substantively reasonable,

        a sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes

        of federal sentencing, in light of the [Sentencing] Guidelines and other [18 U.S.C.]

        § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. McDonald, 850 F.3d 640, 643 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). In reviewing a sentence outside the Guidelines range, we “may

        consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due deference to the district court’s

        decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Gall,

        552 U.S. at 51.

               Here, the district court varied upward from the 30-to-37-month Guidelines range,

        explaining that a 60-month sentence was necessary to deter Colbert—who had already

        sustained a prior felon-in-possession conviction—from further criminal conduct; to reflect

        the seriousness of the offense, during which Colbert combined his unlawful firearm

        possession with drug dealing; and to protect the public and promote respect for the law.

        See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), (B), (C). The court also found that Colbert’s criminal

        history category did not adequately account for his significant criminal history. Finally,

        the court emphasized Colbert’s poor prison disciplinary record.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4586       Doc: 24         Filed: 05/25/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

               On appeal, Colbert contends that this is a mine-run case that warrants a within-

        Guidelines-range sentence. He also downplays his criminal history and the level of drug

        dealing in which he engaged. However, based on our review of the record, we conclude

        that the court acted within its discretion in evaluating Colbert’s criminal history and offense

        conduct and determining that a within-Guidelines-range sentence was insufficient to satisfy

        the goals of sentencing. Simply put, this is not “one of the rare cases where the sentence

        imposed by the district court was substantively unreasonable in light of the § 3553(a)

        factors.” United States v. Abed, 3 F.4th 104, 119 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).

               Accordingly, we affirm Colbert’s criminal judgment.           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

                                                      3