Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    United States v. Parrish, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Charles Parrish pled guilty to dealing firearms without a license. He was sentenced to 33 months in prison. Parrish's attorney argued that the sentence's reasonableness could be questioned, but the court found no errors. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable based on the calculated guidelines range and consideration of sentencing factors. The motion to withdraw representation was denied.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Parrish, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views3 pages
    Charles Parrish pled guilty to dealing firearms without a license. He was sentenced to 33 months in prison. Parrish's attorney argued that the sentence's reasonableness could be questioned, but the court found no errors. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable based on the calculated guidelines range and consideration of sentencing factors. The motion to withdraw representation was denied.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-12-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-5233

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Charles Parrish pled guilty to dealing firearms without a license. He was sentenced to 33 months in prison. Parrish's attorney argued that the sentence's reasonableness could be questioned, but the court found no errors. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable based on the calculated guidelines range and consideration of sentencing factors. The motion to withdraw representation was denied.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    13 views3 pages

    United States v. Parrish, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Charles Parrish pled guilty to dealing firearms without a license. He was sentenced to 33 months in prison. Parrish's attorney argued that the sentence's reasonableness could be questioned, but the court found no errors. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable based on the calculated guidelines range and consideration of sentencing factors. The motion to withdraw representation was denied.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-5233

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CHARLES EMMANUEL PARRISH,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
    District Judge. (1:08-cr-00333-TDS-1)

    Submitted:

    November 30, 2010

    Decided:

    December 3, 2010

    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Benjamin D. Porter, MORROW ALEXANDER PORTER & WHITLEY, PLLC,


    Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Michael A.
    DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles Emmanuel Parrish pled guilty, pursuant to a
    written

    plea

    agreement,

    license,

    in

    (2006).

    The district court sentenced Parrish to thirty-three

    violation

    months imprisonment.

    to

    of

    dealing

    18

    U.S.C.

    in

    firearms

    without

    922(a)(1)(A),

    923(a)

    Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders

    v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there


    are

    no

    meritorious

    issues

    for

    appeal

    reasonableness of Parrishs sentence.

    but

    questions

    the

    Parrish was notified of

    his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not


    done so.

    Finding no error, we affirm.


    Appellate review of a sentence, whether inside, just

    outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range, is for


    abuse of discretion.
    (2007).

    This

    Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41

    review

    requires

    consideration

    of

    both

    procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence.


    51.

    the

    Id. at

    This court must assess whether the district court properly

    calculated
    U.S.C.

    the

    advisory

    3553(a)

    presented

    by

    the

    selected sentence.

    Guidelines

    (2006)
    parties,

    factors,
    and

    range,

    considered

    analyzed

    any

    sufficiently

    the

    18

    arguments

    explained

    the

    Id. at 49-50; see also United States v.

    Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) ([A]n individualized
    explanation must accompany every sentence.); United States v.
    Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
    2

    We may presume a

    sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range


    is reasonable.

    United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,

    217 (4th Cir. 2010).


    We have reviewed the record with these standards in
    mind.

    Our

    examination

    leads

    us

    to

    conclude

    that

    sentence is procedurally and substantively sound.

    Parrishs
    Therefore,

    the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
    chosen sentence.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
    in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
    We

    therefore

    affirm

    the

    district

    counsels motion to withdraw.

    courts

    judgment.

    We

    deny

    This court requires that counsel

    inform Parrish, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme


    Court

    of

    the

    United

    States

    for

    further

    review.

    If

    Parrish

    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 Parrish.


    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    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