United States v. Vincent Sumpter

Court Case Details
Court Case Opinion




No. 11-4707


Plaintiff - Appellee,



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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. May-
Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Vincent Sumpter was convicted of several offenses

resulting from a conspiracy to commit robbery and firearm

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

1320206 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2011) (unpublished), this court

affirmed the convictions but remanded for 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

Sumpter’s ability to pay a fine. At resentencing, the court

announced the properly 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. The Government did

not file a brief. 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. 2010). This review requires appellate

consideration of both the procedural and substantive


reasonableness of a sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In

determining procedural reasonableness, this court considers

whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s

advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

(2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties,

and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.

“Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above,

below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on the

record an individualized assessment based on the particular

facts of the case before it.” Carter, 564 F.3d at 330 (internal

quotation marks omitted). 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 for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking

authority.’” 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 of the sentence, taking “‘into account the

totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any

variance from the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Morace,

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



We conclude that the district court provided a

sufficient individualized assessment prior to ordering the

sentence. The court noted Sumpter’s criminal history, the

offense conduct, the harm to the victims, Sumpter’s propensity

to commit more offenses, the need to protect the public, and

Sumpter’s own admission that he was too lazy to work. The court

found that despite the fact that Sumpter had an extensive

criminal history there was nothing in the record to indicate

that he would slow down his criminal conduct. Rather, the court


noted that Sumpter’s conduct became more violent as time passed.

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



the convictions were previously affirmed.

Sumpter’s challenge to the court’s 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).


With regard to whether the district court considered

Sumpter’s ability to pay a fine, at resentencing the court
declined to order a fine.


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


In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

We therefore affirm Sumpter’s sentence. This court requires

that counsel inform Sumpter, in writing, of the right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If Sumpter 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 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.


consideration. See United States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 117-
18 (4th Cir. 1998).


Referenced Cases