US v. Raymond Webber, No. 10-4243 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4243 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAYMOND CHARLES WEBBER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00048-RLV-DSC-4) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 29, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven T. Meier, MEIER LAW, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond Charles Webber pled guilty to mail fraud, in violation of sentenced Webber counsel for 18 U.S.C. to Webber § 341 125 has (2006). months filed a The district imprisonment. brief pursuant On to court appeal, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious imposed. grounds for appeal, but challenging the sentence Specifically, counsel suggests Webber s sentence at the top of the Sentencing Guidelines range is too harsh and that the district court erred in not giving to Webber credit for time Webber spent in custody on an allegedly related charge. Webber has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising similar issues. The Government elected not to file a response. We review a sentence abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). both the sentence. court properly reasonableness under an Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. This review requires appellate consideration of procedural Id. for We affirm. and substantive reasonableness of a This court must assess whether the district calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) ( [A]n individualized explanation must accompany every sentence. ); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 2 (4th Cir. 2009) (same). In addition, this court presumes a sentence within a properly determined advisory Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). We conclude that Webber s sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable. properly calculated Webber s is both The district court Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable § 3553(a) See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th factors. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the district court based its sentence on its individualized assessment of the facts of the case. 564 F.3d at 328. the Carter, Last, we conclude that Webber has not rebutted presumption that presumptively reasonable. his within-Guidelines sentence is With respect to Webber s assertion that the district court erred in not crediting him for time served on district a related court did offense, not the record conclusively deny reflects that the credit, rather it stated it would leave the record open for a ruling on credit because what was before the court was too nebulous to permit a credit to be granted at the present time. We conclude the district in court did not abuse its discretion imposing the chosen sentence. As required by Anders, we have reviewed the record and Webber s pro se supplemental brief 3 and find no meritorious issues for review. judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s This court requires that counsel inform Webber in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Webber requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may withdraw from representation. move this court for leave to Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Webber. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not 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.
