United States v. Tanner McNeil , 561 F. App'x 301 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4712
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TANNER TAURELL MCNEIL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00009-TDS-1)
Submitted: March 7, 2014 Decided: March 26, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harvey A. Carpenter IV, THE LAW OFFICES OF HA CARPENTER IV,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Stephen Thomas
Inman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tanner Taurell McNeil appeals the seventy-four-month
sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea
to attempted bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)
(2012). On appeal, McNeil’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable.
McNeil was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but did not file one. Finding no error, we affirm.
The sole issue raised in the Anders brief is whether
the sentence was reasonable. In reviewing a sentence, we must
first ensure that the district court did not commit any
“significant procedural error,” such as failing to properly
calculate the applicable Guidelines range, failing to consider
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, or failing to adequately
explain the sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). Once we have determined that there is no procedural
error, we must consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the
circumstances.” Id. If the sentence imposed is within the
appropriate Guidelines range, we consider it presumptively
reasonable. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th
Cir. 2008). The presumption may be rebutted by a showing “that
2
the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a)
factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379
(4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon
review, we conclude that the district court committed no
procedural or substantive error in imposing the seventy-four-
month sentence. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578
(4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform McNeil, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If McNeil 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 McNeil. 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