United States v. Andrew Coley ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4272
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANDREW LAMAR COLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00214-JAB-3)
Submitted: December 5, 2014 Decided: January 7, 2015
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James E. Quander, Jr., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Coley appeals the district court’s criminal
judgment imposing a 314-month sentence following his guilty plea
to conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2012), and two counts of
brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012).
In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
Coley’s counsel filed a brief certifying that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Coley’s
sentence is reasonable. Although notified of his right to do so,
Coley has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.
We review Coley’s sentence for reasonableness, using
“an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We must first review for “significant
procedural error[s],” including “improperly calculating[] the
Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see United States v.
Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Only if we conclude
that the sentence is procedurally reasonable may we consider its
substantive reasonableness. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
2
Here, the record reveals no procedural or substantive
error in Coley’s sentencing. The district court properly
calculated Coley’s Guidelines range and adequately explained the
reasons for imposing a below-Guidelines sentence. Moreover,
Coley failed to rebut the presumption that his sentence was
substantively reasonable under the § 3553(a) factors. See
United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.
2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Coley, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Coley requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Coley. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3