UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4202
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAMIAN AURELIUS POLK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00221-TDS-1)
Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 3, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher A. Beechler, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States Attorney,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Damian Aurelius Polk pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams
or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable
amount of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006).
The district court determined that Polk satisfied the
requirements for application of the safety valve and sentenced
Polk below the statutory mandatory minimum to ninety-two months’
imprisonment. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are
no meritorious issues for appeal but questions the
reasonableness of Polk’s sentence. Polk was notified of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done
so. Finding no error, we affirm.
Appellate review of a sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” is for
abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
(2007). This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. at
51. This court must assess whether the district court properly
calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see also United States v.
2
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized
explanation must accompany every sentence.”); United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). We may presume a
sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range
is reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,
217 (4th Cir. 2010).
We have reviewed the record with these standards in
mind. Our examination leads us to conclude that Polk’s sentence
is procedurally and substantively sound. Therefore, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
chosen sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Polk, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Polk 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 Polk. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4