UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4581
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY LAMONTE PACE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00401-JAB-2)
Submitted: December 4, 2009 Decided: December 16, 2009
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S.
Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Lamonte Pace pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to one count of distribution of cocaine
hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C)
(2006), and to one count of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2) (2006). Following a jury trial, Pace was convicted
of one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)
(2006); he was sentenced to a total of 128 months’ imprisonment.
Pace appeals his sentence, alleging that it is substantively
unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to further the
goals of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors. We
affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). This review requires
appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Id. Because Pace challenges only
the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, we need not
consider whether his sentence is procedurally reasonable. See
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999) (holding that a party who fails to assert claims in the
2
argument section of its opening brief is deemed to have
abandoned those claims).
This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence, “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, 552 U.S. at 51). This court
accords a sentence within the properly calculated guidelines
range an appellate presumption of reasonableness. United
States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008), cert.
denied, 129 S. Ct. 1312 (2009). We have thoroughly reviewed the
record and find that Pace has failed to rebut that presumption.
See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.
2006) (stating presumption may be rebutted by showing sentence
is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors).
We thus find the sentence reasonable.
We affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
3