UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAQUILA MONTEZ BUMPASS,
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. (1:13-cr-00102-WO-1)
Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Leonard, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shaquila Montez Bumpass appeals the 147-month sentence
imposed by the district court following her guilty plea to
conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and 28
grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2012), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)
(2012). In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), Bumpass’ counsel has filed a brief certifying that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
Bumpass’ sentence is substantively reasonable. Although
informed of her right to do so, Bumpass has not filed a
supplemental brief. We affirm.
We review Bumpass’ sentence for reasonableness, using
“an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We must first review for “significant
procedural error[s],” including “improperly calculating[] the
Guidelines range, . . . 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; United States v. Evans,
526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Only if we conclude that the
sentence is procedurally reasonable may we consider its
substantive reasonableness. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
2
325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, the record reveals no
procedural or substantive error in Bumpass’ sentencing.
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 Bumpass, in writing, of her right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Bumpass 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 Bumpass. 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