US v. Samuel Lewis, No. 08-4303 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4303 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL JEROME LEWIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge; William W. Wilkins, Senior Circuit Judge, sitting by designation. (8:07-cr-00954-GRA-1) Submitted: October 22, 2008 Decided: December 1, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samuel Jerome Lewis appeals his convictions and 130month sentence after pleading guilty to armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d) (2006), and use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. pursuant § 924(c)(1)(A) to Anders (2006). v. Counsel California, has 386 filed U.S. a 738 brief (1967), questioning whether the district court erred in sentencing Lewis to 130 months of imprisonment. Counsel concedes, however, that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although notified of his right to do so, Lewis has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm. We review the sentence imposed by the district court for Gall reasonableness, v. United using States, States v. Pauley, appellate court 511 is the 128 F.3d abuse of Ct. 586, S. 468, required to 473 discretion 597 (4th review (2007); Cir. the standard. United 2007). An sentence for procedural or substantive errors: It must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence--including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. 2 If the appellate court concludes that the sentence is procedurally sound, the court then considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. Substantive reasonableness review entails taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. 128 S. Ct. at 597). Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473 (quoting Gall, We presume that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within Guidelines sentence). Based Lewis s on sentence our is review of procedurally committed no procedural errors. the record, sound. The we find district that court The court appropriately treated the Guidelines as advisory and then considered the Guidelines range and imposing the a factors 130-month Guidelines range. in 18 prison U.S.C. § 3553(a) term, a (2006) sentence before within the We apply the presumption of reasonableness to Lewis s within-Guidelines sentence, and find that neither Lewis nor the record presumption. We suggests therefore any information conclude that to the rebut the sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 3 We therefore affirm Lewis s convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Lewis, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Lewis requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in and materials legal before court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Lewis. facts this We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.