UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THANG CAO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00055-RJC-20)
Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 2, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Trevor M. Fuller, FULLER & BARNES, LLP, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Edward R. Ryan, Acting United States
Attorney, Thomas Tullidge Cullen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thang Cao pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
methylenedioxymethamphetamine and marijuana, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2006). He was sentenced to eighty-seven
months’ imprisonment. Cao’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in
his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning whether the sentence was reasonable. Cao has filed
a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has declined to
file a reply brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review sentences imposed by the district court for
reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall
v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597-98 (2007); see also United
States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). We must
first ensure that the district court committed no procedural
error, such as improperly calculating the guidelines range,
considering the guidelines to be mandatory, failing to consider
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, sentencing based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. In the absence of
procedural errors, we consider the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence, taking into account the totality of the
circumstances, including any variance from the guidelines range.
2
Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. While we may presume a sentence within
the guidelines range to be reasonable, we may not presume a
sentence outside the range to be unreasonable. Id. Moreover,
we give deference to the district court’s decision that the
§ 3553(a) factors justify a variant sentence and to the extent
of that variance. Even if the reviewing court would have
imposed a different sentence, this fact alone is not sufficient
to justify reversing the district court. Id. at 473-74.
In imposing Cao’s sentence, the district court
correctly calculated the guidelines range and considered both
the advisory nature of the guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors.
The court provided adequate reasons for its decision to grant a
downward departure and to deny any further variance.
Accordingly, we conclude that Cao’s sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable.
In his pro se supplemental brief, Cao merely
reiterates the arguments he presented at sentencing for a
downward departure. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed
the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found
none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Cao, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Cao requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
3
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Cao. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4