UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4604
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONTE LEE SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00017-CCE-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 3, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Tiffany T. Jefferson,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Donte Lee Smith appeals his eighty-month sentence
imposed after he pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to
possession of ammunition by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012). In accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Smith’s counsel filed a brief
certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning whether Smith’s sentence is substantively
reasonable. Although notified of his right to do so, Smith has
not filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the Government has
declined to file a responsive brief. Finding no error, we
affirm.
We review the district court’s sentence, “whether
inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines
range[,] under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In reviewing a
sentence for substantive reasonableness, we “examine[] the
totality of the circumstances,” and, if the sentence is within
the properly calculated Guidelines range, we presume on appeal
that the sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v.
Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216–17 (4th Cir. 2010). “Such a
presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
[(2012)] factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306
2
(4th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421
(2014). Smith has failed to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness this court affords his within-Guidelines
sentence.
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 Smith, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Smith 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
Smith. 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