United States v. Adrian Lamar Sanders
697 F. App'x 182
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Adrian Lamar Sanders pled guilty, via a written plea agreement, to drug trafficking and related firearm offenses.
- Sentencing proceeded in district court, which calculated the Guidelines range, heard arguments, allowed allocution, and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence for drug counts and the statutory maximum for firearm counts, all to run concurrently.
- Sanders’ counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal but questioning sentence legality and whether the Government should have moved for a downward departure.
- Sanders did not file a pro se supplemental brief despite being notified of the right to do so.
- The Government did not make a motion for a sentence reduction and had no contractual obligation in the plea agreement to do so.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence | Sanders contends his sentence may be legally improper | District court correctly calculated Guidelines, allowed argument/allocution, and explained sentence | Sentence is procedurally reasonable and affirmed |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Sanders argues overall sentence may be unreasonable | Within-Guidelines sentence carries presumption of reasonableness | Substantively reasonable; presumption not rebutted |
| Government’s failure to move for downward departure | Sanders argues Government should have moved for reduction | Government made no promise in plea agreement and denial not shown to be unconstitutional | No obligation to move; claim fails |
| Right to appeal / Anders procedural compliance | Counsel filed Anders brief; Sanders received notice | Court reviewed record per Anders and found no meritorious issues | Affirmed; counsel must notify Sanders of Supreme Court petition right |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to submit brief asserting no meritorious appeal)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (framework for procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
- Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181 (1992) (court may remedy government refusal to move for reduction only if government contractually obligated or refusal was unconstitutional)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519 (4th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for sentencing reasonableness)