US v. Brandon McLaurin, No. 10-4714 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: <
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4714 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. BRANDON LASHAWN MCLAURIN, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00334-TDS-1) Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: the Middle Thomas D. April 5, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton B. Shoaf, Jr., ADDISON & SHOAF, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brandon Lashawn McLaurin appeals his 262-month sentence after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2010), furtherance and of a one drug count of possession trafficking crime, in of firearms violation U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). of in 18 Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), indicating that he has examined the record and found no meritorious grounds for appeal, but indicating that McLaurin wishes to challenge whether the district court adequately considered the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010) factors before imposing his sentence. McLaurin has not filed a pro se supplemental brief despite receiving notice that he may do responsive brief. so, and the Government declined to file a Finding no error, we affirm. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), this court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, using an abuse of discretion standard of 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). the court to ensure review. Gall v. United States, The first step in this review requires that significant procedural error. 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). the district court committed no United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d Procedural errors include failing to 2 calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence including an Guidelines range. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If, and explanation only if, for this any court deviation finds from the the sentence procedurally reasonable can the court consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. United Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). States v. We presume that a sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable. See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). McLaurin s presentence investigation report ( PSR ) properly calculated his total offense level at thirty-one and appropriately placed him in criminal history category yielding a Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months. VI, The district court adopted the PSR s factual findings and calculations at sentencing, afforded counsel an opportunity to argue regarding an appropriate allocute, sentence, considered the afforded McLaurin § 3553(a) an factors opportunity before to imposing McLaurin s sentence, and thoroughly explained its rationale for imposing McLaurin s particular sentence. See Carter, 564 F.3d at 330 (recognizing that the district court must place on the record an individualized assessment 3 based on the particular facts of the assessment . case . . before must it and provide a that the rationale individualized tailored to the particular case at hand and [be] adequate to permit meaningful appellate review ) omitted). (internal Because quotation this court marks and presumes citations McLaurin s within-Guidelines sentence is correct, and since McLaurin has presented no evidence to rebut McLaurin s 262-month sentence. this presumption, we affirm See Allen, 491 F.3d at 193. 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 McLaurin, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If McLaurin requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that counsel may in move representation. such this a petition court for would leave to be frivolous, withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on McLaurin. 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.
