Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 10-5245
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00467-WMN-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
December 7, 2011
PER CURIAM:
Terrell Rogers appeals his 292-month prison sentence
for convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (2006), possession with
intent
to
distribute
841(a)(1)
tampering
cocaine
(2006),
in
and
violation
base
in
violation
conspiracy
of
18
to
U.S.C.
engage
1512(k)
of
21
in
U.S.C.
witness
(2006).
We
affirm.
We
review
discretion standard.
(2007).
for
under
deferential
abuse
of
procedural
court
sentence
reasonableness
committed
no
by
significant
ensuring
that
procedural
the
errors,
district
such
as
failing
to
consider
the
18
U.S.C.
3553(a)
(2006)
United
consider
the
substantive
reasonableness
of
the
We
sentence
Guidelines
range
is
reasonable.
United
first
calculated
asserts
his
that
Guidelines
2
the
range
district
by
applying
court
the
may
find
the
facts
relevant
to
A sentencing
applying
the
cross
United
Guidelines
purposes,
first
degree
murder
is
18
U.S.C.
1111
(2006).
U.S.
Sentencing
Guidelines
with
malice
aforethought.
Every
murder
perpetrated
18
Id.
Malice aforethought is a necessary component of first
342
F.3d
350,
356
(4th
Cir.
United States v.
2003).
[M]alice
and
wanton
and
gross
deviation
from
reasonable
Id.
Because felony murder was not at issue here, a finding
murder.
particular
Id.
period
of
We
time
have
for
previously
reflection
stated
is
that
essential
no
to
United States v.
Sinclair, 301 F. Appx 251, 255 (4th Cir. 2008) (per curiam)
(citing Faust v. North Carolina, 307 F.2d 869, 871 (4th Cir.
1962)).
is
fact
the
important.
of
deliberation,
Sinclair,
301
F.
of
second
Appx
at
thought
255
that
(quoting
is
United
district
premeditation.
courts
finding
of
malice
aforethought
and
finding that the gun discharged before the cars final crash,
thus supporting a finding that it is more likely than not that
Rogers intentionally fired the gun at the victim.
reversible
error
with
the
district
4
courts
We find no
finding
by
of
also
explanation
claims
in
error
imposing
with
his
the
district
sentence.
courts
district
[its]
own
legal
decisionmaking
authority.
guidelines
sentences
themselves
are
in
This is
many
ways
close
attention
to
federal
sentencing
policy.
United
States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
We find that the district court adequately explained
its basis for imposing Rogers sentence.
noted
the
extensiveness
of
Rogers
criminal
history
and
the
argument
brought
before
it.
Given
the
within-
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
We
legal
AFFIRMED