UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4042
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
APRIL DAWN STILTNER, a/k/a April Laughlin,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-jpj-pms-18)
Submitted: July 14, 2009 Decided: August 4, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Neil A. Horn, NEIL HORN, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant.
Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
April Dawn Stiltner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base
and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The
district court sentenced Stiltner to 120 months of imprisonment.
Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal. Stiltner was informed of
her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so.
We affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the
district court erred in determining the amount of drugs
attributable to Stiltner. We review a sentence for
reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597
(2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th
Cir. 2009). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for
“significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate
(or improperly calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the
[g]uidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence . . . .” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. This court
then “‘consider[s] the substantive reasonableness of the
2
sentence imposed.’” United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161
(4th Cir.) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597), cert denied, 129
S. Ct. 476 (2008) . “Substantive reasonableness review entails
taking into account the ‘totality of the circumstances,
including the extent of any variance from the [g]uidelines
range.’” United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir.
2007) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). If the sentence is
within the guidelines range, we apply a presumption of
reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127
S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of
reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence).
The district court’s determination of the drug amount
involved is a factual issue reviewed for clear error. United
States v. Lamarr, 75 F.3d 964, 972 (4th Cir. 1996). Under the
clear error standard of review, this court will reverse only if
“‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.’” United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 542
(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S.
564, 573 (1985)). At sentencing, the Government need only
establish the amount of drugs involved by a preponderance of the
evidence. United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 560 n.20, 562
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 519 (2008); United
States v. Cook, 76 F.3d 596, 604 (4th Cir. 1996).
3
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not clearly err in determining the amount of
drugs attributable to Stiltner. We also find that the district
court did not commit any procedural error in sentencing Stiltner
and conclude that Stiltner’s within-guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Stiltner, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Stiltner 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 Stiltner. 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