UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4427
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHAUN XAVIER STALLINGS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:09-CR-00069-MR-1)
Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 3, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard H. Tomberlin, TOMBERLIN LAW OFFICE, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Shaun Xavier Stallings of conspiracy
to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute
marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 846, 851 (2006), and conspiracy
to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2006). He was
sentenced to seventy-two months’ imprisonment. His counsel has
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
positing general challenges to Stallings’ convictions and
sentence. Although informed of his right to do so, Stallings
has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government
declined to file a response. We affirm.
A jury’s verdict “must be sustained if there is
substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the
Government, to support it.” Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.
60, 80 (1942); see United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 160
(4th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence is “evidence that a
reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and
sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693
(4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). We consider
both circumstantial and direct evidence, drawing all reasonable
inferences from such evidence in the Government’s favor. United
States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 2008). In
2
resolving issues of substantial evidence, we do not reassess the
factfinder’s determination of witness credibility, see United
States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th Cir. 2008), and “can
reverse a conviction on insufficiency grounds only when the
prosecution’s failure is clear.” United States v. Moye, 454
F.3d 390, 394 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation
marks omitted). We have reviewed the transcript of the jury
trial and the evidence introduced at that trial and conclude
that there is sufficient evidence to support Stallings’
convictions.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under 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 a sentence. Id.
This court must assess whether the district court properly
calculated the 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 United States v. 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). An extensive explanation is not required as
long as the appellate court is satisfied “‘that [the district
court] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned
3
basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.’”
United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir.) (quoting
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)), cert. denied,
131 S. Ct. 165 (2010). We must then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the
totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Because
the district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence, we
presume the sentence is reasonable. See United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). Stallings
has not rebutted that presumption on appeal. See United
States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude the sentence
was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and conclude there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Stallings’ convictions and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Stallings, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Stallings 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 Stallings. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
4
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5