United States of America v. Courtney Lamont Pauling, a/k/a Marcus Lamont Book, a/k/a Rode

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4455
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COURTNEY LAMONT PAULING, a/k/a Marcus Lamont Book, a/k/a
Rode,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (7:14-cr-00790-JMC-1)
Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora Blanchard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Courtney Pauling pled guilty to possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(e) (2012). The district court sentenced Pauling to 120
months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised
release. Pauling appeals his sentence. Counsel has filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), raising one issue but stating that, in her view, there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Counsel challenges the 120-month sentenced imposed by the
district court for plain error. Under the plain error standard,
Pauling must show: (1) there was error; (2) the error was plain;
and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993). Even when these
conditions are satisfied, this court may exercise its discretion
to notice the error only if the error “seriously affect[s] the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. at 736 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We find no plain error in the calculation of Pauling’s
sentence because the district court computed the correct
sentencing range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(2015) before imposing the 120-month sentence.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
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 Pauling, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Pauling 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 Pauling.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --