US v. Wil McArthur, No. 10-4384 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4384 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WIL KARIM MCARTHUR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00183-JAB-1) Submitted: February 23, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amy Lee Copeland, AMY LEE COPELAND, LLC, Savannah, Georgia, for Appellant. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wil Karim McArthur pled guilty to nine counts of interference with interstate commerce by threats of violence, in violation of brandishing 18 a U.S.C. firearm § 1951 during (2006), and in and relation one to count of crime of a violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2006). The district court sentenced McArthur to a 174-month sentence, composed of nine concurrent 90-month sentences on the robbery counts and a single mandatory minimum sentence for brandishing a firearm. consecutive 84-month Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the adequacy of the district court s explanation for the selected sentence. file a pro se McArthur was advised of his right to supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Finding no reversible 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 the U.S.C. 3553(a) § advisory Guidelines (2006) factors, 2 range, considered analyzed any the 18 arguments presented by the parties, selected sentence. and sufficiently explained the Id. at 49-50; see also United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) ( [A]n individualized 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. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). The district Guidelines range, regarding an court afforded appropriate properly counsel calculated an sentence, the opportunity afforded advisory to argue McArthur an opportunity to allocute, and considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors. explain The its sentence. district rationale court, for however, imposing did not McArthur s sufficiently particular Although the district court committed error that was plain, see Lynn, 592 F.3d at 577 (stating standard of review), we conclude that the error did not affect McArthur s substantial rights. The district court sentenced McArthur, as requested, to the low end of the properly calculated Guidelines range. id. at 580. McArthur s See With regard to the substantive reasonableness of sentence, McArthur has failed to rebut the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. See Allen, 491 F.3d at 193. 3 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 McArthur, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If McArthur 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 McArthur. 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 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.
