US v. Ray Page, No. 10-5161 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5161 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RAY CHARLES PAGE, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00024-NCT-1) Submitted: June 27, 2011 Decided: July 12, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles H. Harp, II, CHARLES H. HARP, II, P.C., Lexington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ray Charles Page pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 924(a)(2) (2006). Guidelines range (2009) seventy at sentenced counsel Page has 386 U.S. 738 in violation The under to filed to of district the U.S. seventy months a pursuant (1967), stating U.S.C. court that §§ 922(g)(1), calculated Sentencing eighty-seven brief 18 Guidelines months Anders there Manual imprisonment imprisonment. to Page s On and appeal, California, no meritorious are v. issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing sentence. We review Page s sentence abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 41 (2007). that the We affirm. under a deferential Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. In conducting this review, we must first ensure district court committed no significant procedural error, such 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 failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. When rendering a sentence, the district court facts, or Id. at 51. must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented, United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal 2 quotation marks and emphasis omitted), and must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing, Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. When imposing a sentence within the Guidelines, however, the [district court s] explanation need not be elaborate themselves are or in lengthy many because ways tailored [G]uidelines to the sentences individual and reflect approximately two decades of close attention to federal sentencing policy. United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Once we have determined that the sentence is free of procedural error, reasonableness of we the must consider sentence, totality of the circumstances. the tak[ing] into substantive account Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. the If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we apply a presumption on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). Such a presumption is rebutted only by showing that the sentence factors. is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, the district court correctly calculated and considered the advisory Guidelines range and heard argument from counsel and allocution from Page. 3 The court considered relevant § 3553(a) factors and explained that the within- Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of the nature and circumstances of characteristics. grounds to the substantively and Page s history and Further, neither counsel nor Page offers any rebut within-Guidelines offense the presumption sentence appeal seventy months Accordingly, reasonable. of on we that the imprisonment conclude that is the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Page. In accordance with Anders, we have also reviewed the remainder of the record in this meritorious issues for appeal. court s judgment. case and have found no We therefore affirm the district This court requires that counsel inform Page, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Page 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 Page. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
