US v. Johnathan Parrish, No. 12-4256 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4256 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOHNATHAN KAREEM PARRISH, Defendant -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. (1:11-cr-00194-JAB-1) Submitted: September 18, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Johnathan Parrish pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation district court sentenced Parrish now appeals. 386 U.S. 738 of 18 U.S.C. him to § 922(g)(1) 46 months (2006). of The imprisonment. In accordance with Anders v. California, (1967), Parrish s attorney has filed a brief certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning sentence. the substantive Parrish received reasonableness notice of his of right Parrish s to supplemental pro se brief, but has not done so. file a Finding no error, we affirm. We review Parrish s sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 52 (2007). the sentence for significant Gall v. We begin by reviewing procedural error, including improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), sentencing based on clearly erroneous facts, explain the sentence imposed. sentence procedurally reasonableness. Cir. 2009). or failing Id. at 51. reasonable can we to adequately Only if we find a consider substantive United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Here, Parrish s within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable, United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d 388, 395 2 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 350 (2011), and we find no procedural or substantive error in its imposition. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Therefore, we affirm Parrish s conviction and sentence. This court requires counsel to inform Parrish, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Parrish requests that a petition be filed but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in representation. this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Parrish. 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 in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
