UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4715
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
QUINTON ANTONIO WALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cr-00452-WO-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2014 Decided: May 7, 2014
Before GREGORY and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Quentin Antonio Wall appeals the ninety-eight-month
sentence imposed by the district curt following his guilty plea
to distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2012). Wall’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the
procedural reasonableness of Wall’s sentence. Wall was notified
of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief but has not
done so. Following careful review of the record, we affirm.
Wall asserts that the district court did not
adequately address his mitigating sentencing arguments,
including that he normally dealt in powder cocaine and that the
court placed undue weight on his criminal history. The record
belies Wall’s claim. In sentencing Wall, the district court
followed all necessary procedural steps, properly calculating
the Guidelines range, considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors and the parties’ arguments, and providing an
individualized assessment based on the facts presented. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Wall’s
below-Guidelines sentence is presumed substantively reasonable
on appeal, and he has not met his burden to rebut this
presumption. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir.
2012); United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th
2
Cir. 2006). Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse
its discretion in sentencing Wall. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore
affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Wall, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Wall
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 Wall.
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