UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4131
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRYAN A. WILLINGHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(8:13-cr-00748-TMC-1)
Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora Blanchard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bryan A. Willingham pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1344 (2012), and received a sentence of thirty-three months’
imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning the
reasonableness of the sentence. Willingham was advised of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.
The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm.
We review Willingham’s sentence for reasonableness,
“under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review requires
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51; United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). After determining
whether the district court correctly calculated the advisory
Guidelines range, we must decide whether the court considered
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, analyzed the arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575-76.
Once we have determined that the sentence is free of
significant procedural error, we consider its substantive
reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the
2
circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Where, as here, the
sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we presume
that the sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v.
Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). Such a presumption
is rebutted only if the defendant demonstrates “that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a)
factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379
(4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court committed neither
procedural nor substantive error in sentencing Willingham. The
court correctly calculated and considered as advisory the
applicable Guidelines range. After hearing argument from
counsel and providing Willingham the opportunity to allocute,
the court considered the § 3553(a) factors, including the nature
and circumstances of the offense and Willingham’s history and
characteristics, and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of
thirty-three months. Counsel does not offer any grounds to
rebut the presumption on appeal that Willingham’s within-
Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable, and our review
reveals none. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Willingham.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Willingham’s conviction and
3
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Willingham,
in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Willingham 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 Willingham.
AFFIRMED
4