UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4423
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JIMMY DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:12-cr-00740-RBH-1)
Submitted: January 16, 2014 Decided: February 19, 2014
Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William T. Clarke, SARRAT & CLARKE, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States
Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Davis pled guilty to one count of simple assault
of a Federal Correctional Officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 111(a) (2012). Davis was sentenced to the maximum statutory
sentence of one year imprisonment and one year supervised
released and ordered to pay $1747.56 in restitution under 18
U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1) (2012). The district court affirmed the
magistrate judge’s judgment of conviction. On appeal, counsel
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting that there are no meritorious arguments for
appeal. Davis was notified of the opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but did not do so. The Government did not
file a brief. We affirm.
Our review of the transcript shows that the magistrate
judge complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure and that Davis’ guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.
We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” for
reasonableness, “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 216 (2012); see 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
2
procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161
(4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include “failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range,
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
§ 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence — including an explanation for any deviation from the
Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If, and only if, we
find the sentence procedurally reasonable can we consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
We conclude that there was no procedural error at
sentencing and that the one year sentence was substantively
reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Davis’ conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Davis 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 Davis. We dispense with oral argument because the
3
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4