Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    United States v. Donaldson, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The defendant, Daquan Donaldson, appealed his sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Donaldson's sentencing guidelines were increased because he used the firearm during a robbery. The district court applied the sentencing guidelines cross-reference and denied Donaldson's request for a sentence variance. The appeals court found that the district court properly applied the sentencing guidelines and imposed a reasonable sentence within the statutory and guidelines ranges. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Donaldson, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    28 views4 pages
    The defendant, Daquan Donaldson, appealed his sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Donaldson's sentencing guidelines were increased because he used the firearm during a robbery. The district court applied the sentencing guidelines cross-reference and denied Donaldson's request for a sentence variance. The appeals court found that the district court properly applied the sentencing guidelines and imposed a reasonable sentence within the statutory and guidelines ranges. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-06-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-5060

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendant, Daquan Donaldson, appealed his sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Donaldson's sentencing guidelines were increased because he used the firearm during a robbery. The district court applied the sentencing guidelines cross-reference and denied Donaldson's request for a sentence variance. The appeals court found that the district court properly applied the sentencing guidelines and imposed a reasonable sentence within the statutory and guidelines ranges. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Donaldson, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The defendant, Daquan Donaldson, appealed his sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Donaldson's sentencing guidelines were increased because he used the firearm during a robbery. The district court applied the sentencing guidelines cross-reference and denied Donaldson's request for a sentence variance. The appeals court found that the district court properly applied the sentencing guidelines and imposed a reasonable sentence within the statutory and guidelines ranges. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-5060

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DAQUAN LAMEL DONALDSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (5:04-cr-00057)

    Submitted:

    May 25, 2007

    Decided:

    June 18, 2007

    Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Samuel B. Winthrop, WINTHROP AND WINTHROP, Statesville, North


    Carolina, for Appellant. Robert John Gleason, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Daquan Lamel Donaldson appeals from his sentence imposed
    following his guilty plea to one count of possession of a firearm
    by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (2000).
    The

    presentence

    investigation

    report

    (PSR)

    recommended

    that

    Donaldsons base offense level be increased pursuant to U.S.


    Sentencing
    Section

    Guidelines

    2K2.1(c)(1)

    Manual

    (USSG)

    cross-referenced

    to

    2K2.1(c)(1)
    USSG

    (2005).

    2X1.1,

    which

    increased Donaldsons base offense level for his use of the firearm
    in a robbery.

    The district court adopted the findings of the PSR,

    denied Donaldsons motion for a variance, and sentenced Donaldson


    to 120 months imprisonment.

    Donaldsons counsel filed a brief

    pursuant to Anders v. California, 286 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating


    that there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggesting
    that the district court erred in sentencing Donaldson.

    Donaldson

    was apprised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but


    elected not to do so.
    After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
    district court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
    sentencing

    guidelines.

    However,

    in

    imposing

    sentence

    post-Booker, courts still must calculate the applicable guideline


    range after making the appropriate findings of fact and consider
    the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under the
    guidelines and 3553(a). United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424,

    - 2 -

    432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006).

    This court

    will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is within the statutorily


    prescribed

    range

    and

    is

    reasonable.

    quotation marks and citation omitted).

    Id.

    at

    433

    (internal

    [A] sentence within the

    proper advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.


    United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006).
    On appeal, counsel first questions the propriety of the
    district courts decision to cross-reference the robbery charge in
    determining Donaldsons advisory guideline range.

    The cross-

    reference found at USSG 2K2.1(c) directs the application of USSG

    2X1.1,

    if

    the

    defendant

    used

    connection with another offense.

    or

    possessed

    the

    firearm

    in

    As Donaldson used a firearm in

    the commission of a robbery, the district court correctly concluded


    that the cross-reference applied.

    Accordingly, the district court

    properly applied the sentencing guidelines.


    Next, counsel questions whether the district court erred
    in denying Donaldsons motion for a variance. Donaldsons sentence
    was at the bottom of the 120-150 month advisory guideline range and
    within the ten year statutory maximum.

    Because the district court

    appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, and properly


    calculated and considered the guideline range and the relevant
    3553(a) factors, we find the sentence reasonable.

    See United

    States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir.) (holding that a sentence

    - 3 -

    within the properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively


    reasonable), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
    As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
    and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
    affirm the district courts judgment.

    We therefore

    This court requires that

    counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the


    Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

    If the

    client 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.

    Counsels motion

    must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

    We

    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 4 -

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy