United States v. Richard Jones , 548 F. App'x 92 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4564
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD LEE JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-00326-NCT-1)
Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013
Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Lee Jones appeals his eighty-seven-month
sentence following his guilty plea to possession with intent to
distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2012). In accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Jones’ counsel has filed a
brief certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but questioning whether Jones’ sentence is substantively
reasonable. Jones has not filed a supplemental brief despite
receiving notice of his right to do so. We affirm.
We review Jones’ sentence for reasonableness, using an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). We first review for significant procedural errors,
including improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, sentencing under
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
sentence. Id. at 51; see United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161
(4th Cir. 2008). Only if we conclude a sentence is procedurally
reasonable may we consider its substantive reasonableness. United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
Here, the district court correctly calculated Jones’
Guidelines range and fully explained its reasoning supporting
Jones’ sentence. Accordingly, we conclude that the sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. See United States v.
2
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (affording
within-Guidelines range sentence presumption of reasonableness
on appeal).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Jones, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Jones 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
Jones. 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