US v. Charles Parrish, No. 09-5233 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5233 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES EMMANUEL PARRISH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00333-TDS-1) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 3, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin D. Porter, MORROW ALEXANDER PORTER & WHITLEY, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Emmanuel Parrish pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, license, in (2006). The district court sentenced Parrish to thirty-three violation months imprisonment. to of dealing 18 U.S.C. in firearms without §§ 922(a)(1)(A), a 923(a) Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal reasonableness of Parrish s sentence. but questions the Parrish was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. Appellate review of a sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range, is for abuse of discretion. (2007). This Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 review requires consideration of both procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. 51. the Id. at This court must assess whether the district court properly calculated U.S.C. the advisory § 3553(a) presented by the selected sentence. Guidelines (2006) parties, factors, and range, considered analyzed any sufficiently the 18 arguments explained the Id. at 49-50; see also 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). 2 We may presume a sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). We have reviewed the record with these standards in mind. Our examination leads us to conclude that sentence is procedurally and substantively sound. Parrish s Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district counsel s motion to withdraw. court s judgment. We deny This court requires that counsel inform Parrish, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Parrish 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 Parrish. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
