UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4382
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEE ROY ROBERTS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:12-cr-00629-HMH-1)
Submitted: October 25, 2013 Decided: January 2, 2014
Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob
Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lee Roy Roberts appeals the district court’s judgment
imposing a sentence of 235 months in prison after he pled guilty
to conspiracy to distribute oxycodone in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846. Roberts’s attorney has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting, in his opinion, that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether it was
unreasonable for the district court to sentence Roberts to serve
235 months in prison. Roberts was notified of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
We review a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). The first step in this review requires us to ensure
that the district court committed no significant procedural
error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range,
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, or failing
to adequately explain the sentence. United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). If the sentence is
procedurally reasonable, we then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the
totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We
presume that a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines
2
range is substantively reasonable. United States v. Susi, 674
F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that
Roberts’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable,
and the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in
sentencing him. The district court properly calculated his
Guidelines range and reasonably determined that a sentence at
the high end of the range was appropriate in this case.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in
writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review. If the client 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 the client.
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
3