UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4939
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TROUN VANRECKUS BROCK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:13-cr-00036-JPJ-PMS-3)
Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: April 6, 2016
Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne D. Inge, LAW OFFICE OF WAYNE D. INGE, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellant. Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States
Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Troun Vanreckus Brock appeals the district court’s judgment
imposing a 151-month sentence following his conviction for
conspiracy to distribute Schedule II controlled substances, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C) (2012).
Brock’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court erroneously denied Brock’s motion for judgment of
acquittal based on sufficiency of the evidence and whether
Brock’s sentence was reasonable. Brock has been notified of his
right to file a pro se brief, but he has not filed one. We
affirm.
First, we find no error in the district court’s denial of
Brock’s motion for judgment of acquittal. “A defendant
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy
burden.” United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir.
2007). “A jury’s verdict must be upheld on appeal if there is
substantial evidence in the record to support it.” Id. at 244.
Evidence is “substantial” if, viewed in the light most favorable
to the government, “there is evidence that a reasonable finder
of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a
conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Id. at 245. Because the record before us contains ample
2
evidence of Brock’s guilt, we conclude that the district court
did not err in denying his motion.
We next turn to Brock’s sentence, which we review for both
procedural and substantive reasonableness “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 41 (2007). We must ensure that the district court committed
no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating
the Sentencing Guidelines range. Id. at 51. If there is no
significant procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s
substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the
circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range.” Id. We presume that a sentence within a
properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United
States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). A defendant can rebut this presumption
only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
After reviewing the presentence report and sentencing
transcript, we conclude that Brock’s sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court
properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, discussed the
applicable § 3553(a) factors, and thoroughly explained its
reasons for imposing the sentence Brock received. In addition,
Brock has not made the showing necessary to rebut the
3
presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines
sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We
deny Brock’s motion for copy of electronically recorded
transcript. This court requires that counsel inform Brock, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Brock 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 Brock.
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