US v. Thomas Shoffner, No. 11-4178 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4178 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THOMAS JARRELL SHOFFNER, Defendant -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-00027-NCT-1) Submitted: November 10, 2011 Decided: November 30, 2011 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. C. Burell Shella, C. BURELL SHELLA, PC, Durham, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Thomas Jarrell Shoffner appeals his thirty-month sentence for possessing a firearm as an unlawful drug user or addict, in (2006). violation Shoffner s of 18 counsel U.S.C. has §§ 922(g)(3), filed a brief 924(a)(2) pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states that he could identify no meritorious issues for appeal, but requests that the court review Shoffner s sentence for error. * Having reviewed the record, we affirm the court reviews a sentence judgment of the district court. This applying States, an 552 abuse U.S. of discretion 38, 51 for reasonableness, standard. (2007). We Gall first v. ensure United that the 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 adequately explain the chosen sentence. error was committed, reasonableness, we taking review into the account * facts, failing to If no procedural Id. sentence the or for substantive totality of the Despite receiving notice of his right to file a pro se informal brief, Shoffner has not done so. The Government has elected not to file a brief. 2 circumstances. Id. In this respect, an appellate court must defer to the trial court and can reverse a sentence only if it is unreasonable, even if the sentence would not have been the United States v. Evans, 526 choice of the appellate court. F.3d 155, sentence 160 that (4th falls Cir. 2008) within a (emphasis properly range is presumptively reasonable. in original). calculated A Guidelines United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). Our review of the record reveals that Shoffner s within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. We discern no error with computation respect applicable Shoffner to the Guidelines and his district range, counsel court s the to opportunities speak in it of the provided mitigation, or its explanation of the sentence imposed by reference to the factors enumerated in § 3553(a). Nor does the record demonstrate any reason to disturb the presumptive substantive reasonability of Shoffner s within-Guidelines sentence. Allen, 491 F.3d at 193. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny also Shoffner s pending pro se motion to substitute counsel, as well as counsel s pending motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel inform Shoffner, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 3 further review. If Shoffner requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may renew his motion for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Shoffner. 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.
