US v. Michael Morton, No. 10-4949 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: <
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4949 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MICHAEL MORTON, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00729-MBS-11) Submitted: April 4, 2011 Decided: April 7, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leslie Locklair, LOCKLAIR LEGAL SERVICES, LLC, Daniel Island, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stanley Duane Ragsdale, John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Morton appeals the 262-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Counsel for Morton filed a brief in this court in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that she has found no meritorious grounds for appeal, reasonableness of Morton s sentence. but questioning the Morton received notice of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not file one. Because we find no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm. We review a sentence imposed by a district court under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010). We begin by reviewing the sentence for error, significant procedural including such errors as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, explain the chosen sentence. are no significant or failing to Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. procedural errors, we then adequately If there consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account 2 the totality of Mendoza-Mendoza, rendering a States 597 circumstances. F.3d sentence, individualized United the the assessment v. 212, Carter, 216 (4th district based 564 on F.3d United Cir. court the 325, 2010). must facts 328 States v. make an presented. (4th (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (emphasis omitted). When Cir. 2009) Accordingly, a sentencing court must apply the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the particular facts presented and must state in open court the particular reasons that support its chosen sentence. Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(c) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010)). The court s explanation need not be exhaustive; it must be sufficient to satisfy the appellate court that the district court has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)) (alterations omitted). We conclude that the sentence imposed by the district court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district and court correctly calculated understood that it was advisory. the Guidelines range Furthermore, it is apparent that the court considered the arguments of the parties and had a reasoned basis for its decision. The court made individualized statement explaining the sentence imposed. 3 an We presume that the sentence, at the bottom of the Guidelines range, is reasonable; Morton has not rebutted that presumption. Thus, we affirm the sentence imposed as reasonable. 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 Morton, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Morton requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Morton. 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.
