United States v. Tony Rochelle, Jr.
683 F. App'x 222
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Tony Lamont Rochelle, Jr. pled guilty to carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119) and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)).
- District court calculated a Guidelines range and sentenced Rochelle to 130 months' imprisonment; Rochelle requested a downward variance.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal issues but questioning whether the district court erred in denying the downward variance; Rochelle did not file a pro se brief.
- The Government declined to file a response brief on appeal.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the sentence for reasonableness under Gall and related precedent and examined whether the district court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred in sentencing | Rochelle argued the court should have granted a downward variance | Government argued the court correctly followed Guidelines and reasoned under § 3553(a) | No procedural error; court properly calculated Guidelines, considered arguments, and explained sentence |
| Whether the within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable | Rochelle argued the sentence was excessive given his circumstances and requested variance | Government argued the sentence was justified by offense seriousness, plea benefit, criminal record, and public protection needs | Sentence presumed reasonable; Rochelle failed to rebut presumption; sentence substantively reasonable |
| Whether appellate counsel correctly filed an Anders brief and preserved appellate review | Rochelle (via counsel) asserted no meritorious issues except the variance question | Government declined to oppose; Fourth Circuit reviewed full record per Anders | Anders procedures followed and court found no meritorious appellate issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (review standard for reasonableness of sentences)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (requirements for counsel who asserts an appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (procedural-reasonableness review guide)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (presumption of substantive reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)