United States v. Kevin Brown
678 F. App'x 105
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kevin Eugene Brown pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).
- District court imposed a 96-month sentence, below the properly calculated Guidelines range after applying the career-offender enhancement.
- Brown appealed, and counsel filed an Anders brief stating no meritorious issues but questioning procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
- Brown filed a pro se brief arguing the career-offender designation was improper.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed for procedural and substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence (calculation/explanation) | Brown argued sentencing contained procedural error / inadequate explanation | Government defended proper Guidelines calculation and adequate explanation | Court held no significant procedural error; Guidelines were properly calculated and court explained sentence |
| Substantive reasonableness of 96-month sentence | Brown argued sentence was substantively unreasonable despite being below Guidelines | Government argued below-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors supported it | Court held sentence was substantively reasonable and Brown failed to rebut presumption of reasonableness |
| Career-offender designation | Brown argued he lacked the requisite prior controlled-substance convictions | Government maintained Brown had the necessary prior convictions to trigger the enhancement | Court held career-offender enhancement was properly applied |
| Anders counsel adequacy / appellate review | Implicit that issues meritorious enough to review | Government supported counsel’s Anders filing and the record review | Court performed full Anders review, found no meritorious issues, and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sets standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness review of federal sentences)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (framework for appointed counsel filing a brief asserting no meritorious appellate issues)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for below-Guidelines sentences and defendant's burden to rebut)