US v. Terwin Brown, No. 08-4402 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4402 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERWIN LEMAR BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00122-WO-1) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terwin Lemar Brown appeals his conviction and sentence imposed for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Brown s counsel has filed an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issue of whether sentence was properly calculated and reasonable. declined to file a brief. brief. Brown s The Government Brown has filed a pro se supplemental Finding no error, we affirm. Counsel raises the issue of whether the district court committed procedural or substantive error in determining Brown s sentence, but concludes that there was no sentencing error. A sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion with the review encompassing both reasonableness. (2007). procedural soundness and substantive Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 Brown s counsel questions whether the court erred in attributing a total of five criminal history points for five separate convictions for misdemeanor failure to pay child support. thirty days for each criminal contempt for Because Brown was sentenced to conviction, the five criminal history points were properly attributed. Next, counsel raises whether Brown s 81-month sentence was greater than necessary to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). The properly calculated Guidelines range was 77 to 96 months. A sentence within the Guidelines range is presumptively 2 reasonable. The record reveals that the court considered the § 3553(a) factors and there is no indication that the district court abused Applying a its discretion presumption of in fashioning reasonableness the to sentence. the Guidelines sentence, see United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding within-Guidelines presumption sentence), we of reasonableness conclude for that not Brown has rebutted the presumption of reasonableness and that his sentence is reasonable. Brown s pro se supplemental brief challenges his arrest as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in pleading guilty, again challenges points for the failure inclusion to pay of child the five support, criminal and history alleges that counsel was ineffective in failing to present evidence that the criminal history was conviction was counted suspended portion of improperly the as an calculated adult sentence was when a adjudication improperly juvenile and the considered. After reviewing the record, we find no merit in these claims. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Brown s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, 3 of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, believes but counsel 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 the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
