UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4597
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DERRICK OWENS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:13-cr-00019-FDW-5)
Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 16, 2015
Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric A. Bach, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Owens appeals the district court’s criminal
judgment sentencing him to thirty months’ imprisonment for
conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute one or more
controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1).
846 (2012). In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), Owens’s counsel filed a brief certifying that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. Although
advised of his right to do so, Owens did not file a pro se
supplemental brief. We affirm.
We review Owens’s 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,” including “improperly calculating[] the [Sentencing]
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.
If we find no procedural error, we examine the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence under “the totality of the
circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed
must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to satisfy
the goals of sentencing. See § 3553(a). We presume on appeal
2
that a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is
reasonable. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379
(4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
appellant bears the burden to rebut the presumption by showing
“that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the
§ 3553(a) factors.” Id.
Owens received an adequate, individualized explanation of
his properly calculated, within-Guidelines sentence. Our review
of the record leads us to conclude that his sentence was neither
procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Owens, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If he 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 Owens.
3
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
4