United States of America v. Robert Johnson, a/k/a Robert Leslie, a/k/a Lavon White, a/k/a Dre

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5234
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT JOHNSON, a/k/a Robert Leslie, a/k/a Lavon White,
a/k/a Dre,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00084-FDW-1)
Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 25, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Johnson pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
and to distribute fifty grams or more of a mixture and substance
containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The district court granted the
Government’s substantial assistance motion and sentenced Johnson
to 168 months’ imprisonment. 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 but questions the
reasonableness of Johnson’s sentence. Johnson 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. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
(2007). This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. at
51. This court must assess whether the district court properly
calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see also United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized

-- 2 of 3 --

3
explanation must accompany every sentence.”); United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). 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 Johnson’s
sentence is procedurally and substantively sound. 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 court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Johnson, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Johnson 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 Johnson. 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

-- 3 of 3 --