Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    United States v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Joey Levi Johnson pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 15 months in prison, the bottom of the recommended guidelines range. 2) Johnson's counsel appealed, questioning whether the district court erred in sentencing. However, the appellate court found that the district court properly calculated the guidelines range, treated the guidelines as advisory, and considered the appropriate sentencing factors. 3) As the sentence was within the guidelines range, the appellate court deemed it presumptively reasonable and therefore affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views3 pages
    1) Joey Levi Johnson pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 15 months in prison, the bottom of the recommended guidelines range. 2) Johnson's counsel appealed, questioning whether the district court erred in sentencing. However, the appellate court found that the district court properly calculated the guidelines range, treated the guidelines as advisory, and considered the appropriate sentencing factors. 3) As the sentence was within the guidelines range, the appellate court deemed it presumptively reasonable and therefore affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-06-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-4883

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Joey Levi Johnson pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 15 months in prison, the bottom of the recommended guidelines range. 2) Johnson's counsel appealed, questioning whether the district court erred in sentencing. However, the appellate court found that the district court properly calculated the guidelines range, treated the guidelines as advisory, and considered the appropriate sentencing factors. 3) As the sentence was within the guidelines range, the appellate court deemed it presumptively reasonable and therefore affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Joey Levi Johnson pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 15 months in prison, the bottom of the recommended guidelines range. 2) Johnson's counsel appealed, questioning whether the district court erred in sentencing. However, the appellate court found that the district court properly calculated the guidelines range, treated the guidelines as advisory, and considered the appropriate sentencing factors. 3) As the sentence was within the guidelines range, the appellate court deemed it presumptively reasonable and therefore affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-4883

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOEY LEVI JOHNSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.
    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (8:06-cr-00990-HMH)

    Submitted:

    June 3, 2008

    Decided:

    June 13, 2008

    Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James B. Loggins, 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.

    PER CURIAM:
    Joey

    Levi

    Johnson

    appeals

    from

    his

    conviction

    and

    fifteen-month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of felon


    in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)
    (2000).

    Johnsons counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

    California,

    386

    U.S.

    738

    (1967),

    stating

    that

    there

    are

    no

    meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district


    court

    erred

    in

    sentencing

    Johnson.

    Johnson

    was

    given

    an

    opportunity to file a supplemental pro se brief, but has not done


    so.

    For the following reasons, we affirm.


    Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district

    courts

    for

    reasonableness,

    applying

    an

    abuse

    of

    discretion

    Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597-98 (2007);

    standard.

    United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007)
    (discussing procedure district courts must follow in sentencing
    defendant).

    A sentence within the proper Sentencing Guidelines

    range is presumptively reasonable.

    United States v. Allen, 491

    F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 127 S.
    Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness
    for within-guidelines sentence).
    Here,

    the

    district

    court

    properly

    calculated

    the

    guideline range, appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory,


    and considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West

    - 2 -

    2000 & Supp. 2007). Johnsons fifteen month sentence is the bottom
    of the guideline range and is below the statutory maximum sentence
    of ten years imprisonment.
    Neither

    Johnson

    nor

    the

    See 18 U.S.C. 924(a) (2000).

    record

    suggests

    any

    information

    so

    compelling as to rebut the presumption that a sentence within the


    properly calculated guideline range is reasonable.

    We therefore

    conclude that the sentence is reasonable.


    As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
    and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
    affirm the district courts judgment.

    This court requires that

    counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the


    Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

    If the

    client 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 the client.

    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 -

    You might also like