US v. Darrith Beall, No. 12-4985 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRITH LAVON BEALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:09-cr-00900-PMD-1) Submitted: June 17, 2013 Decided: July 9, 2013 Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ann Briks Walsh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew J. Modica, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darrith Lavon Beall pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 2006 & Supp. 2013), and was sentenced to 151 months imprisonment. court later motion construed for reduction Beall s of 18 U.S.C. sentence as The district § 3582(c)(2) 28 a (2006) § 2255 U.S.C.A. (West Supp. 2013) motion, calculated his Guidelines range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2011) at 151 to 188 months imprisonment, granted Beall § 2255 relief, and, after imposing a downward imprisonment. variance, sentenced him to 139 months On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but 139-month sentence is reasonable. questioning whether the Beall was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government declined to file a responsive brief. * We affirm. We under a review the deferential 139-month sentence abuse-of-discretion * for reasonableness standard. Gall v. We note that the Government also did not file a cross-appeal to challenge the lawfulness of the district court s decision to impose the 139-month sentence. Therefore, any alleged error in this regard may not be addressed on appeal. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243-53 (2008). 2 United States, 552 U.S. abuse-of-discretion standard first, the 38, we examine 41, involves sentence for 51 two (2007). steps; This under significant the procedural errors, and under the second, we review the substance of the sentence. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (examining Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51). court imposes a the . . . court decision extent to variant acted impose of the United States sentence, reasonably such a divergence v. we both sentence consider with and from When the district respect with the whether to respect sentencing Hernandez-Villanueva, its to the range. 473 F.3d 118, 123 the record that the imposing the (4th Cir. 2007). We district court 139-month did range and after not sentence. Guidelines parties conclude and review abuse The court heard allocution its from of discretion properly argument from Beall. The in calculated counsel court Beall s for imposed both the 139-month sentence after considering relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) and explaining that a downward variance was efforts while warranted in light incarcerated. of Beall s Further, rehabilitation counsel does not suggest - and review of the record does not reveal any basis for concluding - that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. 3 Additionally, reviewed the in remainder accordance of the meritorious issues for review. court s amended judgment. with record Anders, we have found and have no We therefore affirm the district This court requires that counsel inform Beall, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Beall 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 Beall. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this 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.
