UNITED STATES v. CRAWFORD (2020)

Cornelius C. Crawford pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and was sentenced as a career offender to 200 months’ imprisonment, followed by 6 years of supervised release. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of Crawford's sentence. Although informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Crawford has not done so.

We review a sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We first examine the sentence for procedural error, which includes “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the [Sentencing] Guidelines range, ․ failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Id. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. We then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.” Id. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted).

We have reviewed the record and find that Crawford's sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated Crawford's advisory Guidelines range, considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the chosen sentence. Crawford has not overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Crawford, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Crawford 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 Crawford. 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.