Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Shaun Stallings' convictions for conspiracy to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court found that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict. The court also found Stallings' sentence of 72 months imprisonment to be both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The court concluded there were no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    31 views5 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Shaun Stallings' convictions for conspiracy to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court found that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict. The court also found Stallings' sentence of 72 months imprisonment to be both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The court concluded there were no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-01-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-4427

    Original Title

    United States v. Stallings, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Shaun Stallings' convictions for conspiracy to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court found that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict. The court also found Stallings' sentence of 72 months imprisonment to be both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The court concluded there were no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    31 views5 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Shaun Stallings' convictions for conspiracy to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court found that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict. The court also found Stallings' sentence of 72 months imprisonment to be both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The court concluded there were no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-4427

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    SHAUN XAVIER STALLINGS,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
    District Judge. (3:09-CR-00069-MR-1)

    Submitted:

    December 21, 2010

    Decided:

    January 3, 2011

    Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Richard H. Tomberlin, TOMBERLIN LAW OFFICE, 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.

    PER CURIAM:
    A jury convicted Shaun Xavier Stallings of conspiracy
    to

    distribute

    and

    to

    possess

    with

    intent

    to

    distribute

    marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 841(a), 846, 851 (2006), and conspiracy


    to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1956(h) (2006).
    sentenced to seventy-two months imprisonment.

    He was

    His counsel has

    filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),


    certifying
    positing

    there
    general

    sentence.
    has

    not

    are

    no

    meritorious

    challenges

    to

    issues

    Stallings

    for

    appeal,

    but

    convictions

    and

    Although informed of his right to do so, Stallings


    filed

    pro

    se

    supplemental

    declined to file a response.


    A
    substantial

    jurys

    verdict

    evidence,

    taking

    Government, to support it.

    brief.

    The

    Government

    We affirm.
    must

    be

    the

    view

    sustained
    most

    if

    there

    favorable

    to

    is
    the

    Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.

    60, 80 (1942); see United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 160
    (4th

    Cir.

    reasonable

    2006).
    finder

    Substantial
    of

    fact

    evidence

    could

    is

    accept

    evidence
    as

    that

    adequate

    and

    sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendants guilt beyond


    a reasonable doubt.

    United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693

    (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).

    We consider

    both circumstantial and direct evidence, drawing all reasonable


    inferences from such evidence in the Governments favor.
    States

    v.

    Harvey,

    532

    F.3d

    326,
    2

    333

    (4th

    Cir.

    United

    2008).

    In

    resolving issues of substantial evidence, we do not reassess the


    factfinders

    determination

    of

    witness

    credibility,

    see

    United

    States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th Cir. 2008), and can
    reverse

    conviction

    on

    insufficiency

    prosecutions failure is clear.


    F.3d

    390,

    394

    (4th

    marks omitted).

    Cir.

    2006)

    grounds

    only

    when

    the

    United States v. Moye, 454


    (en

    banc)

    (internal

    quotation

    We have reviewed the transcript of the jury

    trial and the evidence introduced at that trial and conclude


    that

    there

    is

    sufficient

    evidence

    to

    support

    Stallings

    convictions.
    We

    review

    sentence

    abuse-of-discretion standard.
    38, 51 (2007).

    for

    reasonableness

    under

    Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

    This review requires consideration of both the

    procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence.


    This

    court

    calculated

    must
    the

    an

    assess

    whether

    Guidelines

    the

    range,

    district

    considered

    court
    the

    Id.

    properly

    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 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).

    An extensive explanation is not required as

    long as the appellate court is satisfied that [the district


    court] has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned
    3

    basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.


    United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir.) (quoting
    Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)), cert. denied,
    131 S. Ct. 165 (2010).
    reasonableness

    of

    We must then consider the substantive

    the

    sentence,

    district

    presume

    the

    court

    imposed

    sentence

    is

    into

    account

    Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

    totality of the circumstances.


    the

    tak[ing]

    within-Guidelines

    reasonable.

    See

    not

    States v.

    rebutted

    that

    presumption

    Montes-Pineda,

    445

    F.3d

    on
    375,

    (internal quotation marks omitted).

    Because

    sentence,

    United

    Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).


    has

    the

    States

    v.

    Stallings

    appeal.

    See

    379

    Cir.

    (4th

    we

    United
    2006)

    We conclude the sentence

    was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.


    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
    in this case and conclude there are no meritorious issues for
    appeal.
    sentence.
    writing,

    We

    therefore

    affirm

    Stallings

    convictions

    and

    This court requires that counsel inform Stallings, in


    of

    the

    right

    to

    petition

    United States for further review.

    the

    Supreme

    Court

    of

    the

    If Stallings 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 Stallings.

    We dispense

    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    4

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED

    You might also like