United States v. Anthony Reid , 671 F. App'x 97 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4318
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY REID,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:14-cr-00212-DCN-2)
Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alicia Vachira Penn, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Reid pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
and to distribute a kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The district court sentenced Reid as a
career offender to 188 months’ imprisonment. He appeals.
Reid’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but generally questioning the
reasonableness of the sentence. Reid has filed a pro se
supplemental brief in which he challenges his designation as a
career offender in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct.
2551 (2015). We affirm.
We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 41 (2007). Under this standard, a sentence is reviewed for
both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. In
determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the
district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to
argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If a sentence is free of
“significant procedural error,” then we review it for
2
substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality
of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “Any sentence that is within
or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th
Cir. 2014).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Reid’s
sentence is procedurally sound and he fails to overcome the
presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines
sentence. Moreover, Johnson has no application where, as here,
the designation of career offender is based on prior felony drug
convictions. We therefore conclude that Reid’s sentence is
reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds
for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Reid, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Reid 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 Reid. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4