US v. Roderick Wheless, No. 09-4509 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4509 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODERICK WARNER WHELESS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00230-WO-1) Submitted: November 13, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roderick Warner Wheless appeals the 272-month sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to armed bank robbery and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. Wheless s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issue of whether Wheless s sentence on the robbery count is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Wheless was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but he has not done so. We affirm. We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Gall v. The first step in this review requires us to ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008). Significant procedural errors include failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 329 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Ct. at 597. sentence Gall, 128 S. When reviewing a sentence on appeal, we presume a within the properly-calculated 2 Guideline range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). We have district court Wheless, and reviewed did his not the record abuse sentence, its which Guideline range, is reasonable. and conclude discretion is at the in that the sentencing low end of the On appeal, Wheless s attorney argues that the district court did not attach enough weight to the history and characteristics of the defendant, resulting in a sentence greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, he acknowledges that the district court sentenced Wheless as counsel requested, at the bottom of his advisory Guideline range. considered factors, the parties including We find that the district court arguments Wheless s and history and relevant § 3553(a) characteristics, and the court reasonably imposed a sentence at the low end of the advisory range. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If counsel the client believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to 3 withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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 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.
