US v. Courtney Pauling, No. 15-4455 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4455 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COURTNEY Rode, LAMONT PAULING, a/k/a Marcus Lamont Book, a/k/a Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (7:14-cr-00790-JMC-1) Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016 Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lora Blanchard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Courtney Pauling pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted 924(e) (2012). in violation The district imprisonment followed months’ release. brief felon, of court by 18 sentenced three Pauling appeals his sentence. in accordance with Anders v. U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), Pauling years of to 120 supervised Counsel has filed a California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that, in her view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Finding no error, we affirm. Counsel challenges the 120-month sentenced imposed by the district court for plain error. Under the plain error standard, Pauling must show: (1) there was error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993). United Even when these conditions are satisfied, this court may exercise its discretion to notice the error only if the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity proceedings.” We find sentence sentencing or public reputation of judicial Id. at 736 (internal quotation marks omitted). no plain because the range under error in the calculation district court the Sentencing U.S. computed (2015) before imposing the 120-month sentence. 2 of Pauling’s the Guidelines correct Manual In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Pauling, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Pauling 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 Pauling. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 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.
