US v. Sammy Shine, No. 10-4171 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4171 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMMY HARDISON SHINE, a/k/a Shine, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:08-cr-00367-TLW-2) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Before KING and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and March 10, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Wesley Locklair, III, LOCKLAIR & LOCKLAIR, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sammy Hardison Shine pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine and five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). The district court sentenced Shine to 210 months imprisonment. Shine s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating his opinion that there are no meritorious issue for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district variance. court erred in denying Shine s motion for a Shine was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. declined to file a responsive brief. This applying an court reviews a The Government has We affirm. sentence abuse-of-discretion for standard. reasonableness, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). This review requires appellate consideration procedural of both the reasonableness of the sentence. Id. and substantive After determining whether the district court properly calculated the defendant s advisory Guidelines range, this court considers whether the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the selected sentence. parties, and sufficiently explained the Id. at 49-50; see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-47 (2007); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 2 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Finally, this court reviews the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guideline range. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In evaluating the sentencing court s explanation of a selected sentence, this court has consistently held that, while the district court must consider the statutory factors and explain the sentence, it need not explicitly refer to § 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the record, particularly when the court imposes a sentence within the properly calculated advisory Guidelines range. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). At the same time, the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented. Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. The reasons articulated by the district court for a given sentence need not be couched in the precise language of § 3553(a), so long as the reasons can be matched to a factor appropriate for consideration . . . and clearly tied [to the defendant s] particular situation. [are] United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 658 (4th Cir. 2007). In this case, after properly calculating the Guidelines range, the district court sufficiently explained the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors it had considered and their 3 relation to Shine. Shine s motion court s The court adequately explained its denial of sentence considering for the a was variance. Accordingly, procedurally totality of the the reasonable. circumstances, district Moreover, the district court s sentence was also substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Shine, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Shine 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 Shine. 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.
