US v. Sammy Ellis, Jr., No. 10-4533 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4533 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SAMMY LEE ELLIS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (7:09-cr-01075-HFF-1) Submitted: October 21, 2010 Decided: November 18, 2010 Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Loggins, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Sammy Ellis, Jr., pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after punishable by having a term previously of been imprisonment convicted exceeding violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). of a one crime year, in The district court sentenced Ellis to twenty-one months of imprisonment, and he now appeals. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable. Ellis was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so. Finding no error, we affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for significant procedural error, including failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines as mandatory, [(2006)] failing factors, to consider selecting a the [18 sentence U.S.C.] based on § 3553(a) clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence . . . . consider imposed. the Id. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. substantive reasonableness Finally, we then of the sentence We presume on appeal that a sentence within a 2 properly calculated advisory guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence is reasonable. The district court properly calculated the guidelines range, considered the guidelines range along with the § 3553(a) factors, and explained its chosen See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328-30 sentence. (4th Cir. 2009) (reaffirming that sentencing court must make individualized assessment on the record and explain rejection of parties Moreover, arguments Ellis has for sentence failed to outside overcome guidelines the range). presumption of reasonableness we accord to his within-guidelines sentence. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This writing, of court the requires right to that petition United States for further review. counsel the inform Supreme Ellis, Court of in the If Ellis 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 Ellis. 3 We dispense with oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before contentions the court are 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.
