United States v. David Treadway , 550 F. App'x 175 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-4613
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DAVID WESLEY TREADWAY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.     Frederick P. Stamp,
    Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:13-cr-00013-FPS-JES-4)
    Submitted:   January 21, 2014             Decided: January 23, 2014
    Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William L. Pennington, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant.
    Stephen L. Vogrin, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling,
    West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    David     Wesley    Treadway        appeals        the    eighteen-month
    sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea
    to   aiding     and   abetting    the    distribution           of   cocaine    base,   in
    violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2012).                      In accordance with Anders
    v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), Treadway’s counsel has filed
    a brief certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for
    appeal    but    questioning      whether      the        district     court    erred   in
    denying      Treadway’s        request     for        a     probationary        sentence.
    Treadway has not filed a supplemental brief despite receiving
    notice of his right to do so.             We affirm.
    We review Treadway’s 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.       
    Gall, 552 U.S. at 51
    ; see United States v. Evans, 
    526 F.3d 155
    , 160-61 (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 Treadway’s
    Guidelines      range    and   fully     explained        its   reasoning       supporting
    2
    Treadway’s sentence, including its rejection of Treadway’s request
    for a downward departure or variance.                        Accordingly, we conclude
    that   the    sentence     is     procedurally        and   substantively       reasonable.
    See United States v. 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 Treadway, in writing, of his right
    to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
    review.       If Treadway 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 Treadway.              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 in the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-4613

Citation Numbers: 550 F. App'x 175

Judges: Motz, Keenan, Thacker

Filed Date: 1/23/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024