US v. Charles Palmer, No. 08-4644 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4644 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES PALMER, a/k/a Charles Stallworth, Jr., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:07-cr-00190-1) Submitted: November 5, 2008 Decided: November 20, 2008 Before MOTZ, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Palmer pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and was sentenced to seventy months imprisonment. Although Palmer does not contest on appeal the district court s calculation of the advisory guidelines range, he asserts two sentencing errors. First, Palmer argues that the court erred by imposing a sentence greater than necessary to fulfill the purposes of sentencing as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). that the advisory overstates the guidelines seriousness range of his Second, he contends applied him both and conduct to does not sufficiently address his recent attempts to change his life. We affirm. We review sentences abuse of discretion standard. for reasonableness, applying an Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). This court may afford sentences that fall within the properly calculated guidelines range a presumption of Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473; see Rita v. United reasonableness. States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness of within-guidelines sentence). can be rebutted unreasonable United States when v. only This presumption by showing that measured against the § 3553(a) F.3d 375, Montes-Pineda, 2 445 the sentence 379 is factors. (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the district court properly calculated the guidelines range and correctly treated the sentencing guidelines as advisory. In court determining need not an appropriate robotically tick sentence, through a district § 3553(a) s every subsection, but should provide [this court] an assurance that the sentencing court considered the regard to the particular defendant. § 3553(a) factors with United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). had considered both guideline range. the sentence particular Here, the district court explained that it was the § 3553(a) factors and the advisory Moreover, the court stated that it believed appropriate circumstances of when the viewed offense, in light Palmer s of the repeated criminal convictions, and the need to protect the public from Palmer s further criminal acts. Accordingly, we find that the seventy-month sentence, which is within the advisory guidelines range, is reasonable. See Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2462. Because we reject Palmer s challenge to his sentence, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately addressed in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
