US v. Simernon Rogers, No. 08-4581 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4581 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SIMERNON ROGERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00013-1) Submitted: January 30, 2009 Decided: March 5, 2009 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Christian M. Capece, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia; Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Simernon Rogers appeals from the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to distribution of more than fifty grams of cocaine Counsel base has in filed violation a brief of in 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) accordance with (2006). Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that after a review of the record, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Rogers has not filed an informal supplemental brief, and the Government has declined to file a brief. the amended sentence crack and continuing the to powder district disparity and Rogers Anders brief argues that cocaine court imposed ratio should a still have lower affects his considered the sentence. He also argues that the sentence is greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) because Rogers does not have a history of criminal violence. Finding no error, we affirm. We review Rogers sentence under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. 586, 590 (2007). See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. The first step in this review requires the court to ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range. cert. United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), denied, 128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008). Other significant procedural errors include treating the Guidelines as mandatory, 2 failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, explain the chosen sentence. court then considers the or failing to adequately Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. substantive reasonableness The of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Id. This court presumes that a sentence within calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. a properly United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). In calculate the opportunity 2007). the Guidelines to appropriate. Cir. sentencing, argue district range for and court give whatever should the first parties sentence they an deem United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th The court should then consider the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by either party. statutory factors Id. While a district court must consider the and explain its sentence, it need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the record, particularly when the court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). In Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), the Supreme Court held that it would not be an abuse of discretion for a district court to conclude when sentencing a particular defendant that the crack/powder disparity yields a 3 sentence greater than necessary to purposes, even in a mine-run case. achieve § 3553(a) s Id. at 575. While the district court did not specifically address the crack sentencing ratio, it did not indicate that it was constrained from doing so. Further, the court fashioning the sentence. articulated its main concerns in The court correctly calculated the Guidelines range and then gave both parties the opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deemed appropriate. Thus, the district court committed no procedural or substantive error, and Rogers sentence, which was within range, is presumptively reasonable. the calculated Guidelines Therefore, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion by the district court. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Rogers conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Rogers, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Rogers 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 Rogers. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 4 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
