US v. Brian Sellars, No. 12-4681 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4681 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRIAN KEITH SELLARS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00243-TDS-1) Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 30, 2013 Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Todd Allen Smith, LAW OFFICE OF TODD ALLEN SMITH, Graham, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Brian Keith Sellars appeals the 135-month sentence imposed following this court s remand for resentencing, pursuant to United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2010) (en banc). On appeal, Sellars counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court s sentence on remand was reasonable. Sellars has alleges filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he ineffective assistance of counsel, that the district court made numerous errors when determining his relevant conduct, and that the court procedures. failed to comply with applicable forfeiture Finding no error, we affirm. The sole issue raised in the Anders brief is whether Sellars sentence on remand was reasonable. In reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the district court did not commit any significant procedural error, such as failing to properly calculate the applicable Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Once we have determined that there is no procedural we error, reasonableness of the must consider sentence, totality of the circumstances. the tak[ing] into Id. 2 substantive account the If the sentence imposed is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we consider it presumptively reasonable. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). The presumption may be rebutted by a showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. F.3d 375, 379 Upon omitted). (4th review, United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 Cir. 2006) we (internal conclude that quotation the district marks court committed no procedural or substantive error in imposing the 135-month sentence on remand. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review). We have considered Sellars pro se arguments and, in accordance case. with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this Our review has revealed no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore deny Sellars motion to appoint counsel and affirm the district court s second amended judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Sellars, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Sellars requests counsel believes that counsel may in move representation. such this that a a petition petition court for would leave to be be filed, but frivolous, withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Sellars. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the 3 materials before this 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.
