UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4930
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TERRENCE O’BRIEN WASHINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00148-NCT-1)
Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terrence O’Brien Washington pleaded guilty to one count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced
to 41 months of imprisonment. Counsel has filed an Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) brief, finding no meritorious
issues, but questioning whether the sentence is substantively
reasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We first review for significant procedural
errors, including whether the district court failed to calculate
or improperly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range,
treated the Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, or failed to adequately explain
its chosen sentence. Id. If we find the sentence procedurally
reasonable, we then examine substantive reasonableness,
considering the totality of the circumstances. Id. If the
sentence is within the Guidelines range, this court applies a
presumption of reasonableness. United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010).
Washington contends that his sentence is greater than
necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We
find that Washington’s sentence is substantively reasonable.
The district court meaningfully responded to defense counsel’s
2
arguments for a sentence in the middle of the Guidelines range,
and explained its chosen sentence. Furthermore, Washington
presents no evidence to rebut the presumption of reasonableness
applicable to his within-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Washington’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Washington, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Washington 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 Washington.
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