US v. Dantonio Carson, No. 09-4996 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4996 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DANTONIO RODREQUEZ CARSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:09-cr-00422-HMH-1) Submitted: March 4, 2010 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Decided: Circuit Judges, and March 31, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dantonio Rodrequez Carson pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation district court of 18 U.S.C. calculated § 922(g)(1) Carson s (2006). advisory The Guidelines imprisonment range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2008) at 51 to 63 months and sentenced Carson to 62 months imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that the appeal lacks merit but failing questioning to consider, whether for the district purposes of court calculating erred in sentencing credit, the time Carson spent in state custody from the date of his initial appearance in the district court. We affirm. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for review. leads us Our review of the transcript of the guilty plea hearing to conclude that the district court substantially complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Carson s guilty plea and that Carson s substantial rights were not infringed. district court independent knowingly Critically, ensured factual and the that basis voluntarily the and transcript plea that with 2 an was Carson reveals that supported entered understanding by the an the plea of the consequences. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Turning to Carson s sentence, we review it under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). must first ensure that Gall v. United In conducting this review, we 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 [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the Id. at 51. chosen sentence. When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented, applying the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances of the case before it. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation state marks in open and emphasis court the omitted). particular The court reasons must also supporting its chosen sentence and set forth enough to satisfy this court that it reasoned has considered basis authority. for the parties exercising [its] arguments own legal and has a decisionmaking Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Once we have determined that the sentence is free of procedural error, we must 3 consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, totality of the circumstances. tak[ing] into account Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. the If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, this court applies a presumption on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). Here, advisory counsel the district Guidelines and correctly range allocution concedes court and correctly heard from the district the argument from Carson s While Anders counsel Carson. that calculated court did not err in failing to consider the time Carson spent in state custody for purposes of calculating sentencing credit, see United States v. Wilson, 503 procedural U.S. error 329, in 334-35 failing assessment of Carson s case. court s omission did (1992), not to the provide court an committed individualized We conclude, however, that the affect Carson s substantial rights. See United States v. Washington, 404 F.3d 834, 843 (4th Cir. 2005). Further, neither counsel nor Carson put forth any factors to overcome the appellate presumption of reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines sentence. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Carson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Carson requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 4 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 Carson. 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 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.
