United States of America v. Yashine Abdul McLain

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4535
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
YASHINE ABDUL MCLAIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00369-JAB-1)
Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 23, 2014
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Timothy Nicholas Matkins, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Yashine Abdul McLain pled guilty without a plea
agreement to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012),
and was sentenced to 110 months in prison. McLain’s counsel
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether McLain’s
sentence is reasonable. McLain has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of his right to do
so, and the Government has declined to file a responsive brief.
We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d
330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). This review requires consideration of
both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We first assess whether the
district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines
range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012), analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at
49–51; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir.
2010). If the sentence is free of significant procedural error,

-- 2 of 4 --

3
we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
“examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether
the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that
the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in
§ 3553(a).” United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216
(4th Cir. 2010).
In this case, the district court properly calculated
McLain’s Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory,
and considered the applicable § 3553(a) factors. Moreover, the
record establishes that the district court based McLain’s
sentence on its “individualized assessment” of the facts of the
case. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir.
2009). Accordingly, we conclude that McLain’s within-Guidelines
sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform McLain, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If McLain 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 McLain. We dispense with oral argument because

-- 3 of 4 --

4
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --