UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4613
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID WESLEY TREADWAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:13-cr-00013-FPS-JES-4)
Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 23, 2014
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William L. Pennington, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Stephen L. Vogrin, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Wesley Treadway appeals the eighteen-month
sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea
to aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2012). In accordance with Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Treadway’s counsel has filed
a brief certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in
denying Treadway’s request for a probationary sentence.
Treadway has not filed a supplemental brief despite receiving
notice of his right to do so. We affirm.
We review Treadway’s sentence for reasonableness, using
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). We first review for significant procedural errors,
including improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, sentencing under
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see United States v. Evans, 526
F.3d 155, 160-61 (4th Cir. 2008). Only if we conclude a sentence
is procedurally reasonable may we consider its substantive
reasonableness. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th
Cir. 2009).
Here, the district court correctly calculated Treadway’s
Guidelines range and fully explained its reasoning supporting
2
Treadway’s sentence, including its rejection of Treadway’s request
for a downward departure or variance. Accordingly, we conclude
that the sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.
See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.
2006) (affording within-Guidelines range sentence presumption of
reasonableness on appeal).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Treadway, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Treadway requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Treadway. 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 in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3