UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4873
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
NEAL ARMSTRONG
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(7:12-cr-00704-MGL-2)
Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 24, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Neal Armstrong pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute and distribute more than 500 grams of
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The district
court sentenced Armstrong to eighty-seven months of imprisonment
and he now appeals. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether
the sentence is procedurally reasonable. Armstrong was informed
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not
done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330,
335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we examine the sentence for
“significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate
(or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the
Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We will presume on
appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated advisory
Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 551
2
U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (permitting presumption of
reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
Moreover, a district court must conduct an
“individualized assessment” of the particular facts of every
sentence, whether the court imposes a sentence above, below, or
within the Guidelines range. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). In addition, “[w]here [the parties]
present[] nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a . . . sentence
[outside the advisory Guidelines range,] . . . a district judge
should address the party’s arguments and explain why he has
rejected those arguments.” Id. at 328 (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the record
and conclude that the court considered the parties’ sentencing
arguments and sufficiently explained its reasons for choosing
the sentence imposed.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Armstrong, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Armstrong 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
3
state that a copy thereof was served on Armstrong. 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
4