Background
Christopher Wayne Johnson pleaded guilty under a written plea agreement to possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). The district court calculated his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 72 months’ imprisonment.
Johnson’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that counsel had identified no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the sentence was reasonable. Counsel specifically questioned whether the district court correctly calculated Johnson’s criminal-history score under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). Johnson did not file a pro se supplemental brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that Johnson’s sentence was procedurally reasonable. After reviewing the record, the court concluded that the district court correctly calculated Johnson’s criminal-history score, total offense level, and Guidelines range. It also found that the district court adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, meaningfully explained the selected sentence, and sufficiently addressed Johnson’s mitigation arguments.
The court also held that the 72-month sentence was substantively reasonable. Because the sentence fell below the properly calculated Guidelines range, it was presumptively reasonable, and nothing in the record rebutted that presumption. The district court reasonably balanced Johnson’s prior drug-dealing convictions and his possession of drugs and a firearm in this case against his steady employment and several crime-free years before the offense. The Fourth Circuit’s independent Anders review revealed no other meritorious grounds for appeal.
Key Takeaways
- The district court did not err in calculating Johnson’s criminal-history score under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2).
- A sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively substantively reasonable in the Fourth Circuit.
- The district court’s downward variance and individualized weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances supported the 72-month sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deferential appellate review applied when a district court correctly calculates the Guidelines range, addresses mitigation arguments, and explains its weighing of the § 3553(a) factors. It also shows that a disputed criminal-history calculation may not produce reversible error when the calculation is correct and the resulting sentence is otherwise procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Although unpublished and therefore not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit, the opinion provides a concise application of the presumption of reasonableness afforded to within- or below-Guidelines sentences in an Anders appeal.