UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4157
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CURTIS DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cr-00052-RJC-2)
Submitted: August 12, 2013 Decided: August 16, 2013
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Darwin Snow, THE SNOW LEGAL GROUP, PLLC, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Freeman Greene,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Davis pled guilty to two counts of possession
with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C)
(2006), and one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). He was
sentenced to 180 months in prison. Davis now appeals. His
attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming that the district
court gave an insufficient explanation for the sentence but
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Davis
was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
has not filed such a brief. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id.
We first must determine whether there was a significant
procedural error, such as failing to correctly calculate the
defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, failing to consider the
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to
sufficiently explain the selected sentence. United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010). With respect to the
explanation of the sentence, the court “must place on the record
an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular facts of
2
the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330
(4th Cir. 2009). If the sentence is free of procedural error,
we then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575. This review requires us to consider the
totality of the circumstances and to decide “whether the
sentence was reasonable -- i.e., whether the [d]istrict [j]udge
abused his discretion in determining that the § 3553(a) factors
supported” the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 56.
We hold that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing the 180-month sentence. The court fully
complied with the required procedures, providing a sufficiently
individualized assessment and appropriately taking into account
pertinent § 3553(a) factors. In explaining the selected
sentence, the court discussed at length Davis’ extensive
criminal history and expressed its concern that the instant
offenses were very serious. These factors, the court concluded,
required a sentence that would protect the public from further
crimes.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Davis’ convictions and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Davis requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
3
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 Davis.
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