US v. Nigual Brown, Jr., No. 13-4799 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4799 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NIGUAL O KEITH BROWN, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00344-TDS-1) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Before MOTZ, Circuit Circuit Judges. Judge, Decided: and HAMILTON and March 31, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher A. Beechler, LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER A. BEECHLER, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a plea agreement, Nigual O Keith Brown, Jr., pled guilty to two counts of interference with commerce by robbery. The imprisonment. Anders v. district court sentenced him to 175 months Brown s counsel filed a brief in accordance with California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether uncorroborated the statements, sentence and was whether sentenced as a career offender. enhanced Brown based was on properly Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Brown has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Brown contends that his sentence was improperly enhanced based on a statement given to officials by his codefendant. However, in ruling on Brown s objection, the district court expressly stated that the other charged offenses would not be considered in imposing Brown s sentence. We find nothing in the record to refute this statement. Brown also challenges the determination that he qualified for the career offender enhancement at sentencing. We conclude that the district court correctly found that Brown had two prior felony convictions for crimes therefore properly applied this enhancement. 2 of violence, and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2012); see United States v. Bowden, 975 F.2d 1080, 1085 (4th Cir. 1992). We have reviewed Brown s sentence and conclude that the sentence imposed was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Brown, appropriately treated the Sentencing Guidelines considered the as applicable advisory, properly Guidelines range, calculated and weighed and the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors in light of Brown s individual characteristics and history. district court did chosen sentence. not abuse its We conclude that the discretion in imposing the See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentence). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. writing, This of court the right requires to that petition United States for further review. counsel the inform Supreme Brown, Court of in the If Brown 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 Brown. 3 We dispense with oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal contentions are before this and court 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.
