UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4341
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
REGINALD SHANDRELL HUNTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District
Judge. (7:12-cr-00301-TMC-1)
Submitted: October 29, 2013 Decided: November 8, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Shandrell Hunter appeals his fifty-two-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2006). Hunter’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether
the sentence is reasonable. Hunter was notified of his right to
file a supplemental pro se brief, but he has not done so.
Following careful review of the record, we affirm.
Our review reveals that the district court followed
all necessary procedural steps in sentencing Hunter, properly
calculating his Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors and the parties’ arguments, and
provided an individualized assessment based on the facts
presented. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Hunter’s below-Guidelines sentence, pursuant to the Government’s
motion for a downward departure based upon substantial
assistance, is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, and
Hunter has not met his burden to rebut this presumption. See
United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012); United
States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and have found no meritorious issues. We therefore affirm the
2
district court’s judgment. This Court requires that counsel
inform Hunter, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Hunter
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 Hunter.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3