US v. Robert Johnson, No. 09-5234 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT JOHNSON, a/k/a Dre, a/k/a Robert Leslie, a/k/a Lavon White, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:08-cr-00084-FDW-1) Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 25, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randolph M. Lee, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Robert Johnson pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute fifty grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The district court granted the Government s substantial assistance motion and sentenced Johnson to 168 months imprisonment. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions the reasonableness of Johnson s sentence. Johnson was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. Appellate review of a sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range, is for abuse of discretion. (2007). This Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 review requires consideration of both procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. 51. the Id. at This court must assess whether the district court properly calculated U.S.C. the advisory § 3553(a) presented by the selected sentence. Guidelines (2006) parties, factors, and range, considered analyzed sufficiently any the 18 arguments explained the Id. at 49-50; see also United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) ( [A]n individualized 2 explanation must accompany every sentence. ); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). We may presume a sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). We have reviewed the record with these standards in mind. Our examination leads us to conclude that sentence is procedurally and substantively sound. Johnson s Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Johnson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Johnson requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Johnson. 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 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.
