Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 99 views

    United States v. Vincent Sumpter, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Vincent Sumpter's sentence for conspiracy to commit robbery and firearm possession. The Court found that the district court properly considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and provided an individualized assessment for imposing the same sentence on remand. The Court also rejected the issues raised in Sumpter's pro se brief, including his challenge to considering acquitted conduct during sentencing. The Court concluded there were no meritorious issues for appeal and affirmed Sumpter's sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Vincent Sumpter, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    99 views5 pages
    The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Vincent Sumpter's sentence for conspiracy to commit robbery and firearm possession. The Court found that the district court properly considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and provided an individualized assessment for imposing the same sentence on remand. The Court also rejected the issues raised in Sumpter's pro se brief, including his challenge to considering acquitted conduct during sentencing. The Court concluded there were no meritorious issues for appeal and affirmed Sumpter's sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-04-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-4707

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Vincent Sumpter's sentence for conspiracy to commit robbery and firearm possession. The Court found that the district court properly considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and provided an individualized assessment for imposing the same sentence on remand. The Court also rejected the issues raised in Sumpter's pro se brief, including his challenge to considering acquitted conduct during sentencing. The Court concluded there were no meritorious issues for appeal and affirmed Sumpter's sentence.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Vincent Sumpter, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Vincent Sumpter's sentence for conspiracy to commit robbery and firearm possession. The Court found that the district court properly considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and provided an individualized assessment for imposing the same sentence on remand. The Court also rejected the issues raised in Sumpter's pro se brief, including his challenge to considering acquitted conduct during sentencing. The Court concluded there were no meritorious issues for appeal and affirmed Sumpter's sentence.

    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. 11-4707

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    VINCENT SUMPTER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Louise W. Flanagan,
    Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-00246-FL-1)

    Submitted:

    April 6, 2012

    Decided:

    April 13, 2012

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas
    N.
    Cochran,
    Assistant
    Federal
    Public
    Defender,
    Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Jennifer P. MayParker,
    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Raleigh,
    North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Vincent
    resulting

    from

    possession.

    Sumpter
    a

    was

    convicted

    conspiracy

    to

    commit

    of

    several

    robbery

    offenses

    and

    firearm

    In United States v. Sumpter, No. 06-4814, 2011 WL

    1320206

    (4th

    affirmed

    the

    Cir.

    Apr.

    7,

    convictions

    2011)

    but

    (unpublished),

    remanded

    for

    this

    court

    resentencing.

    We

    directed the district court to make an individualized assessment


    prior to ordering the sentence, citing Gall v. United States,
    552 U.S. 38 (2007), and United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325
    (4th Cir. 2009), and to make the required findings relative to
    Sumpters ability to pay a fine.
    announced

    the

    properly

    At resentencing, the court

    calculated

    Guidelines,

    heard

    from

    the

    parties regarding the appropriate sentence and then imposed the


    same sentence.

    On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

    Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there were


    no meritorious arguments for appeal but raising on behalf of
    Sumpter the harshness of the sentence.

    Sumpter has filed a pro

    se supplemental brief raising three issues.


    not file a brief.

    The Government did

    We affirm.

    We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an


    abuse of discretion standard.

    Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

    38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381,
    387

    (4th

    Cir.

    consideration

    of

    2010).
    both

    This
    the
    2

    review

    requires

    procedural

    and

    appellate
    substantive

    reasonableness
    determining

    of

    sentence.

    procedural

    Gall,

    552

    reasonableness,

    U.S.

    this

    at

    court

    51.

    In

    considers

    whether the district court properly calculated the defendants


    advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)
    (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties,
    and

    sufficiently

    Regardless

    of

    explained

    whether

    the

    below,

    or

    within-Guidelines

    record

    an

    individualized

    the

    district

    marks

    assessment

    omitted).

    court

    sentence,

    facts of the case before it.


    quotation

    selected

    it

    sentence.
    imposes
    must

    based

    on

    an

    place
    the

    Id.
    above,
    on

    the

    particular

    Carter, 564 F.3d at 330 (internal


    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

    basis

    authority.

    for

    exercising

    [its]

    own

    legal

    decisionmaking

    United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th

    Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356
    (2007))

    (alterations

    in

    original).

    If

    the

    court

    finds

    no

    significant procedural error, it next assesses the substantive


    reasonableness
    totality

    of

    of

    the

    the

    sentence,

    circumstances,

    taking
    including

    variance from the Guidelines range.

    into
    the

    account

    extent

    of

    the
    any

    United States v. Morace,

    594 F.3d 340, 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at
    51).

    We
    sufficient

    conclude

    that

    individualized

    sentence.

    The

    court

    the

    district

    assessment

    noted

    prior

    Sumpters

    court
    to

    criminal

    provided

    ordering

    the

    history,

    the

    offense conduct, the harm to the victims, Sumpters propensity


    to commit more offenses, the need to protect the public, and
    Sumpters own admission that he was too lazy to work.

    The court

    found

    extensive

    that

    despite

    the

    fact

    that

    Sumpter

    had

    an

    criminal history there was nothing in the record to indicate


    that he would slow down his criminal conduct.

    Rather, the court

    noted that Sumpters conduct became more violent as time passed. 1


    We have considered the issues Sumpter raises in his
    pro se brief and find no merit.

    Insofar as Sumpter challenges

    his convictions, we note that those issues are foreclosed from


    review

    because

    the

    convictions

    were

    previously

    affirmed.

    Sumpters challenge to the courts decision to base the offense


    level in part on acquitted conduct is without merit.

    See United

    States v. Grubbs, 585 F.3d 793, 798-99 (4th Cir. 2009). 2

    With regard to whether the district court considered


    Sumpters ability to pay a fine, at resentencing the court
    declined to order a fine.
    2

    In the Anders brief, counsel notes that the special


    conditions of supervised release listed in the amended judgment
    did not conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. We note
    that those conditions were part of the original judgment and
    were not challenged on appeal.
    Accordingly, we are without
    jurisdiction
    to
    give
    those
    special
    conditions
    further
    (Continued)
    4

    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record


    in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
    We therefore affirm Sumpters sentence.
    that

    counsel

    inform

    Sumpter,

    in
    the

    petition

    the

    Supreme

    Court

    of

    review.

    If

    Sumpter

    requests

    This court requires

    writing,

    that

    of

    United
    a

    the

    States

    petition

    right

    for

    be

    to

    further

    filed,

    but

    counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then


    counsel

    may

    move

    representation.

    in

    this

    court

    for

    leave

    to

    withdraw

    from

    Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof

    was served on Sumpter.

    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

    consideration. See United States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 11718 (4th Cir. 1998).

    You might also like