Court Opinion

ID: 9893681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-29 21:00:32.012417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:37.381166
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4553      Doc: 24         Filed: 10/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4553

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        CARL LEE CARLSON,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cr-00069-CCE-1)

        Submitted: October 12, 2023                                   Decided: October 27, 2023

        Before THACKER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Stacey D. Rubain, Assistant Federal
        Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Margaret
        McCall Reece, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4553         Doc: 24       Filed: 10/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Carl Lee Carlson pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to dealing

        firearms without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(a)(1)(A), 923(a),

        924(a)(1)(D).    The district court sentenced Carlson to 24 months of imprisonment,

        followed by one year of supervised release. On appeal, Carlson’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 the sentence. Carlson

        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. 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). “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated

        Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable. Such a 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)

        (citation omitted).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4553         Doc: 24         Filed: 10/27/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

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

        advisory Guidelines range, accorded Carlson an opportunity to allocute, addressed

        Carlson’s arguments for a shorter sentence, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and

        adequately explained the chosen sentence.            Accordingly, Carlson’s sentence is

        procedurally reasonable.        We further conclude that Carlson has failed to rebut the

        presumption that his below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.

              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 Carlson, in writing, of the right to petition the

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

               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