United States of America v. Wil Karim McArthur

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4384
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WIL KARIM MCARTHUR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00183-JAB-1)
Submitted: February 23, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Amy Lee Copeland, AMY LEE COPELAND, LLC, Savannah, Georgia, for
Appellant. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States Attorney,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Wil Karim McArthur pled guilty to nine counts of
interference with interstate commerce by threats of violence, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2006), and one count of
brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2006).
The district court sentenced McArthur to a 174-month sentence,
composed of nine concurrent 90-month sentences on the robbery
counts and a single mandatory minimum consecutive 84-month
sentence for brandishing a firearm. Counsel has filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questioning the adequacy of the district court’s explanation for
the selected sentence. McArthur was advised of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Finding no reversible 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

-- 2 of 4 --

3
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
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. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th
Cir. 2007).
The district court properly calculated the advisory
Guidelines range, afforded counsel an opportunity to argue
regarding an appropriate sentence, afforded McArthur an
opportunity to allocute, and considered the relevant § 3553(a)
factors. The district court, however, did not sufficiently
explain its rationale for imposing McArthur’s particular
sentence. Although the district court committed error that was
plain, see Lynn, 592 F.3d at 577 (stating standard of review),
we conclude that the error did not affect McArthur’s substantial
rights. The district court sentenced McArthur, as requested, to
the low end of the properly calculated Guidelines range. See
id. at 580. With regard to the substantive reasonableness of
McArthur’s sentence, McArthur has failed to rebut the
presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable.
See Allen, 491 F.3d at 193.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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 McArthur, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If McArthur 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 McArthur. 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 of 4 --