United States v. Althea Mack , 623 F. App'x 619 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4296
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALTHEA MACK, a/k/a Tee, a/k/a Althea Williams,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (3:14-cr-00299-TLW-5)
Submitted: November 30, 2015 Decided: December 3, 2015
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard W. Anderson III, LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD W. ANDERSON III,
LLC, Pendleton, South Carolina, for Appellant. Winston David
Holliday, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Althea Mack appeals the sentence imposed by the district
court after she pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute oxycodone, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(C), 846 (2012). Counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that he has found no meritorious grounds for appeal but
raising potential issues regarding the district court’s denial
of Mack’s request to participate in the BRIDGE program and the
reasonableness of her sentence. Mack was also advised of her
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a
brief.
We review a sentence for procedural and substantive
reasonableness, applying “an abuse-of-discretion standard.”
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If we find no
procedural error, we examine the substantive reasonableness of a
sentence under “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. We
presume on appeal that a within-Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d
295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). The
defendant can rebut that presumption only “by showing that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors.” Id.2
We conclude that the district court did not err in denying
Mack’s request to participate in the BRIDGE program because she
was not the sort of drug user the program was designed to
assist. We also conclude that the 24-month sentence imposed by
the district court is reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found
none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Mack, in writing, of her
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Mack 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 his client. We deny counsel’s current motion to
withdraw at this juncture, and deny as moot Mack’s motion for an
expedited decision. 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