Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    United States v. Brown, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Terwin Lemar Brown appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Brown's attorney submitted an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious issues for appeal but questioned whether Brown's sentence was properly calculated and reasonable. The court found that Brown's sentence was properly calculated and reasonable under the sentencing guidelines. Additionally, the court reviewed Brown's pro se supplemental brief and found no merit in his additional claims challenging his arrest, guilty plea, and criminal history calculation. The court therefore affirmed Brown's conviction and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Brown, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    21 views4 pages
    Terwin Lemar Brown appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Brown's attorney submitted an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious issues for appeal but questioned whether Brown's sentence was properly calculated and reasonable. The court found that Brown's sentence was properly calculated and reasonable under the sentencing guidelines. Additionally, the court reviewed Brown's pro se supplemental brief and found no merit in his additional claims challenging his arrest, guilty plea, and criminal history calculation. The court therefore affirmed Brown's conviction and sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-12-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-4402

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Terwin Lemar Brown appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Brown's attorney submitted an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious issues for appeal but questioned whether Brown's sentence was properly calculated and reasonable. The court found that Brown's sentence was properly calculated and reasonable under the sentencing guidelines. Additionally, the court reviewed Brown's pro se supplemental brief and found no merit in his additional claims challenging his arrest, guilty plea, and criminal history calculation. The court therefore affirmed Brown's conviction and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    21 views4 pages

    United States v. Brown, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Terwin Lemar Brown appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Brown's attorney submitted an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious issues for appeal but questioned whether Brown's sentence was properly calculated and reasonable. The court found that Brown's sentence was properly calculated and reasonable under the sentencing guidelines. Additionally, the court reviewed Brown's pro se supplemental brief and found no merit in his additional claims challenging his arrest, guilty plea, and criminal history calculation. The court therefore affirmed Brown's conviction and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-4402

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    TERWIN LEMAR BROWN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
    District Judge. (1:07-cr-00122-WO-1)

    Submitted:

    December 11, 2008

    Decided: December 15, 2008

    Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,


    Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Michael Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United
    States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Terwin Lemar Brown appeals his conviction and sentence
    imposed

    for

    possession

    of

    firearm

    by

    convicted

    felon.

    Browns counsel has filed an appeal under Anders v. California,


    386

    U.S.

    738

    (1967),

    raising

    the

    issue

    of

    whether

    sentence was properly calculated and reasonable.


    declined to file a brief.
    brief.

    Browns

    The Government

    Brown has filed a pro se supplemental

    Finding no error, we affirm.


    Counsel raises the issue of whether the district court

    committed procedural or substantive error in determining Browns


    sentence, but concludes that there was no sentencing error.

    sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion with the review


    encompassing

    both

    reasonableness.
    (2007).

    procedural

    soundness

    and

    substantive

    Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597

    Browns counsel questions whether the court erred in

    attributing a total of five criminal history points for five


    separate

    convictions

    for

    misdemeanor

    failure to pay child support.


    thirty

    days

    for

    each

    criminal

    contempt

    for

    Because Brown was sentenced to

    conviction,

    the

    five

    criminal

    history

    points were properly attributed.


    Next, counsel raises whether Browns 81-month sentence
    was greater than necessary to comply with 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)
    (2006).

    The properly calculated Guidelines range was 77 to 96

    months.

    A sentence within the Guidelines range is presumptively


    2

    reasonable.

    The record reveals that the court considered the

    3553(a) factors and there is no indication that the district


    court

    abused

    Applying

    its

    discretion

    presumption

    of

    in

    fashioning

    reasonableness

    the

    to

    sentence.

    the

    Guidelines

    sentence, see United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir.
    2008); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69
    (2007)

    (upholding

    within-Guidelines

    presumption

    sentence),

    we

    of

    conclude

    reasonableness

    for

    that

    not

    Brown

    has

    rebutted the presumption of reasonableness and that his sentence


    is reasonable.
    Browns

    pro

    se

    supplemental

    brief

    challenges

    his

    arrest as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, alleges that he


    received ineffective assistance of counsel in pleading guilty,
    again

    challenges

    points

    for

    the

    failure

    inclusion
    to

    pay

    of

    child

    the

    five

    support,

    criminal
    and

    history

    alleges

    that

    counsel was ineffective in failing to present evidence that the


    criminal
    conviction
    suspended

    history

    was

    was

    counted

    portion

    of

    improperly

    the

    as

    an

    calculated
    adult

    sentence

    was

    when

    adjudication
    improperly

    juvenile
    and

    the

    considered.

    After reviewing the record, we find no merit in these claims.


    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.

    We therefore affirm Browns conviction and sentence.

    This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing,


    3

    of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States


    for further review.

    If the client requests that a petition be

    filed,

    believes

    but

    counsel

    that

    such

    petition

    would

    be

    frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to


    withdraw from representation.

    Counsels motion must state that

    a copy thereof was served on the client.


    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like