UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4275
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN ERIC BLANTON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00302-TDS-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Stephen Eric Blanton, Jr., appeals his conviction and 120-
month sentence imposed following his guilty plea, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)
(2012). Blanton’s attorney filed a brief, pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but suggesting as a possible
issue for review whether the district court committed reversible
error when it increased Blanton’s offense level pursuant to U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2A4.1, 2K2.1(c)(1)(A), 2X1.1(a)
(2014). Blanton has not filed a pro se supplemental brief,
despite receiving notice of his right to do so, and the
Government has declined to file a responsive brief. Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review Blanton’s sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 46 (2007). This review requires our consideration of
both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. Id. at 51. We first assess whether the district
court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range,
considered the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012),
analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49–51; see
2
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir. 2010). If
we find no procedural error, we review the sentence for
substantive reasonableness, “examin[ing] the totality of the
circumstances[.]” United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d
212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). “Any sentence that is within or below
a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
[substantively] reasonable” and “[s]uch a presumption can only
be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United
States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
We conclude that Blanton’s sentence is reasonable. The
district court correctly calculated Blanton’s Guidelines range,
listened to counsel’s argument, afforded Blanton an opportunity
to allocute, and adequately explained its reasons for imposing
the 120-month Guidelines sentence. We find that the district
court did not err when it increased Blanton’s offense level,
pursuant to USSG §§ 2A4.1, 2K2.1(c)(1)(A), 2X1.1(a), based on
Blanton’s kidnapping and attempted sexual assault during the
commission of the crime to which he pled guilty. See United
States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010) (“In
assessing whether a sentencing court has properly applied the
Guidelines, we review factual findings for clear error and legal
conclusions de novo.”). Accordingly, Blanton’s Guidelines
3
sentence is presumptively substantively reasonable, see United
States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012), and we
discern no basis in the record to overcome this presumption.
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 counsel to inform Blanton, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Blanton requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
on Blanton. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4