US v. Chatan Maultsby, No. 10-4824 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4824 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CHATAN JUNE MAULTSBY, Defendant Appellant.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-00194-JAB-1) Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Chatan June Maultsby of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006). imprisonment. in violation of 18 U.S.C. He was sentenced to 120 months Maultsby s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating her opinion that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the issues of whether sufficient evidence supports the jury s verdict and whether Maultsby s sentence is reasonable. The Government has declined to file a responsive brief. Although informed of his right to do so, Maultsby has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. A evidence defendant to support We affirm. challenging his the conviction sufficiency bears a heavy of the burden. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). A jury s verdict must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); see United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir. 2006). evidence that a reasonable finder Substantial evidence is of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005) 2 United States v. Alerre, 430 (internal quotation marks omitted). drawing We consider both circumstantial and direct evidence, all reasonable Government s favor. (4th Cir. 2008). inferences from such evidence in the United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 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 grounds only when the prosecution s failure is clear. United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 394 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation evidence introduced marks at omitted). trial We and have conclude reviewed that sufficient evidence to support the jury s verdict. the there is Accordingly, we affirm Maultsby s conviction. With for sentence standard. review respect to Maultsby s reasonableness under sentence, an abuse we of review discretion Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). the procedural substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. This court must whether consideration the district of This both assess requires a court properly calculated and the advisory Guidelines range, considered the 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, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). 3 If there is no procedural error, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a). United States Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). v. If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness. (2007) (upholding Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 presumption of reasonableness for within- Guidelines sentence). We have thoroughly reviewed the sentencing transcript and the presentence district court considered properly the individualized report this case, calculated relevant assessment in the § 3553(a) based on the and conclude Guidelines factors, facts the range, made presented, an and adequately explained the reasons for the chosen sentence in open court. We further find Maultsby s within-Guidelines sentence substantively reasonable. * In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. * We Although Maultsby s Guidelines range initially was 188 to 235 months imprisonment, because the minimum of that range was greater than the statutory maximum of 120 months, 120 months became the Guidelines range. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.1(a) (2008). 4 therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Maultsby in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Maultsby requests that such 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 Maultsby. 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 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.