United States v. John Harmon ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4587
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN THOMAS HARMON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:12-cr-00862-GRA-1)
Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: February 5, 2014
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen,
III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Thomas Harmon appeals the twenty-four-month
sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea
to failure to properly register as a sex offender after
traveling from Georgia to South Carolina, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2250(a) (2012). On appeal, Harmon’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. Harmon 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
Harmon’s 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
2
reasonable. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th
Cir. 2008). The presumption may be rebutted by a showing “that
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 twenty-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 Harmon, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Harmon 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 Harmon. 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