US v. Ed Carlton, Jr., No. 14-4382 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4382 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ED LEE CARLTON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:13-cr-00182-GRA-1) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Andrew B. Moorman, Sr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ed Lee Carlton, Jr., appeals his forty-eight-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of use of a communication device to facilitate a felony, under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (2012). the district court’s explanation Carlton asserts that for his sentence was insufficient and that the district court procedurally erred when it imposed his sentence without providing specific reasons for rejecting his argument for a probationary sentence. Finding no error, we affirm. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), this court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, using an abuse of discretion standard of review. U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 The first step in this review requires the court to ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error. (4th Cir. calculate United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 2008). (or Procedural improperly errors calculating) include the “failing Guidelines to range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] based on explain § 3553(a) clearly the chosen [(2012)] erroneous factors, facts, or sentence—including deviation from the Guidelines range.” 2 selecting failing an to a sentence adequately explanation for Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. any If, and only if, this court finds the sentence procedurally reasonable can the court consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. United Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). States v. The court presumes that a sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable. See United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 383 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 384 (2014). We conclude that Carlton’s forty-eight-month sentence is reasonable. In evaluating a district court’s explanation of a selected sentence, this court has held that, although a district court must consider the statutory factors and explain its sentence, it need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or discuss every single factor on the record. Santana, 668 district court still “must the facts presented[,]” based on § 3553(a) before F.3d factors it.” 95, to Carter, 105 the (4th Cir. make an specific 564 F.3d must also United States v. Rivera- at 2012). However, individualized and apply the circumstances 328 of (quotation the assessment “relevant the case marks and emphasis omitted). The particular court reasons supporting “state its in chosen open court the sentence” and “set forth enough to satisfy” this court that it has “considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” 3 Id. (quotation marks omitted). In other words, the reasons articulated by the district court for a given sentence need not be “couched in the precise language of § 3553(a)” as long as the reasons “can be matched to a factor appropriate for consideration under that statute and [are] clearly tied to [the defendant’s] particular situation.” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 658 (4th Cir. 2007). “By different drawing than the arguments one from § 3553 ultimately for a imposed, sentence [Carlton] sufficiently alert[ed] the district court of its responsibility to render an individualized explanation addressing arguments, and thus preserve[d] [his] claim.” Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010). those United States v. Accordingly, we review the district court’s explanation for Carlton’s sentence under the abuse of discretion standard. Prior to imposing See id. at 576. Carlton’s sentence, the district court stated that it considered the Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors, specifically mentioning that it considered Carlton’s criminal history and offense level, the seriousness of Carlton’s offense, and the need to impose just punishment for his crime. And although the district court found that Carlton admitted his conduct and entered a timely guilty plea, it believed a fortyeight-month criminal sentence conduct and was necessary protect the 4 to public deter from Carlton such from conduct. Having expressly indicated that it considered the Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors, the district court undertook a sufficient analysis in sentencing Carlton. Although the district court did not explicitly address counsel’s request for a probationary sentence, it is apparent that the district court listened to counsel’s arguments, but found that a Guidelines sentence was appropriate. We conclude that the district court did not commit “significant procedural error” in failing to more thoroughly explain Carlton’s sentence. See Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5