US v. Shaun Stalling, No. 10-4427 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4427 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SHAUN XAVIER STALLINGS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:09-CR-00069-MR-1) Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 3, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard H. Tomberlin, TOMBERLIN LAW OFFICE, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: A jury convicted Shaun Xavier Stallings of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 846, 851 (2006), and conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2006). sentenced to seventy-two months imprisonment. He was His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying positing there not no meritorious challenges general sentence. has are to issues Stallings for appeal, but convictions and Although informed of his right to do so, Stallings filed a pro se supplemental declined to file a response. A substantial jury s verdict evidence, taking Government, to support it. brief. The Government We affirm. must be the view sustained most if there favorable to is the Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); see United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir. reasonable 2006). finder Substantial of fact evidence could is accept evidence as that adequate a and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). We consider both circumstantial and direct evidence, drawing all reasonable inferences from such evidence in the Government s favor. States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 2 333 (4th Cir. United 2008). In resolving issues of substantial evidence, we do not reassess the factfinder s determination of witness credibility, see United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th Cir. 2008), and can reverse a conviction on insufficiency prosecution s failure is clear. F.3d 390, 394 (4th marks omitted). Cir. 2006) grounds only when the United States v. Moye, 454 (en banc) (internal quotation We have reviewed the transcript of the jury trial and the evidence introduced at that trial and conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support Stallings convictions. We review a sentence abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). for reasonableness under Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. This court calculated must the an assess whether Guidelines the range, district considered court the Id. properly 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see 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). An extensive explanation is not required as long as the appellate court is satisfied that [the district court] has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned 3 basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority. United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir.) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 165 (2010). reasonableness of We must then consider the substantive the sentence, district presume the court imposed sentence is into account Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. totality of the circumstances. the tak[ing] a within-Guidelines reasonable. See not States v. rebutted that presumption Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d on 375, (internal quotation marks omitted). Because sentence, United Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). has the States v. Stallings appeal. See 379 Cir. (4th we United 2006) We conclude the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and conclude there are no meritorious issues for appeal. sentence. writing, We therefore affirm Stallings convictions and This court requires that counsel inform Stallings, in of the right to petition United States for further review. the Supreme Court of the If Stallings requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Stallings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 4 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5

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.