United States v. Kevin Brown , 678 F. App'x 105 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4296
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN EUGENE BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00423-CCE-1)
Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lynne Louise Reid, L.L. REID LAW, Chapel Hill, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kevin Eugene Brown appeals his conviction and 96-month
sentence after pleading guilty to distribution of cocaine base,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012).
Brown’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Brown’s
sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. Brown
has filed a pro se brief challenging his designation as a career
offender. We affirm.
We review Brown’s sentence for both procedural and
substantive reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
(2007). We must ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the
Guidelines range. Id. at 51. If there is no significant
procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s substantive
reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances,
including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.”
Id. We presume that a sentence below a properly calculated
Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). A defendant can rebut this
presumption only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
2
After reviewing the presentence report and sentencing
transcript, we conclude that Brown’s sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court
properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range and
sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the sentence
Brown received. We discern no error in the district court’s
application of the career offender enhancement, as Brown had the
requisite number of prior convictions for controlled substance
offenses. Finally, Brown has not made the showing necessary to
rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his below-
Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Brown, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Brown requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Brown.
3
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
4