UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4824
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff ─ Appellee,
v.
CHATAN JUNE MAULTSBY,
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. (1:09-cr-00194-JAB-1)
Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Chatan June Maultsby of possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006). He was sentenced to 120 months’
imprisonment. Maultsby’s appellate counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
her opinion that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
raising the issues of whether sufficient evidence supports the
jury’s verdict and whether Maultsby’s sentence is reasonable.
The Government has declined to file a responsive brief.
Although informed of his right to do so, Maultsby has not filed
a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.
“A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his conviction bears a heavy burden.”
United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997)
(internal quotation marks omitted). 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
2
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 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
evidence introduced at trial and conclude that there is
sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Accordingly,
we affirm Maultsby’s conviction.
With respect to Maultsby’s sentence, 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
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 United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010);
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). If
3
there is no procedural error, we review the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the
circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its
discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied
the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If the
sentence is within the Guidelines range, we apply a presumption
of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56
(2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-
Guidelines sentence).
We have thoroughly reviewed the sentencing transcript
and the presentence report in this case, and conclude the
district court properly calculated the Guidelines range,
considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors, made an
individualized assessment based on the facts presented, and
adequately explained the reasons for the chosen sentence in open
court. We further find Maultsby’s within-Guidelines sentence
substantively reasonable. *
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
*
Although Maultsby’s Guidelines range initially was 188 to
235 months’ imprisonment, because the minimum of that range was
greater than the statutory maximum of 120 months, 120 months
became the Guidelines range. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 5G1.1(a) (2008).
4
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Maultsby in writing of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Maultsby requests that such 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 Maultsby. 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
5