UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4233
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STONEY SHEW,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00053-RLV-DCK-1)
Submitted: March 30, 2016 Decided: April 8, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Denzil H. Forrester, THE LAW OFFICES OF DENZIL H. FORRESTER,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland
Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stoney Shew pleaded guilty, without a written agreement, to
conspiracy to distribute, possess with intent to distribute, and
manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2012), and possession and distribution of
pseudoephedrine for the purpose of manufacturing
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(34)(K),
841(c)(2) (2012). The district court sentenced Shew to 135
months’ imprisonment, a downward variance from the 360-month-to-
life Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Shew contends that
the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the downward
variance should have been greater. We affirm.
We review Shew’s sentence for reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d
519, 527-28 (4th Cir. 2014). Because Shew raises no procedural
error, we limit our review to the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence under “the totality of the circumstances.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). “Any sentence that is
within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is
presumptively [substantively] reasonable. 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
(4th Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421
2
(2014). We conclude that Shew has failed to rebut the
presumption that his below-Guidelines sentence is substantively
reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s criminal
judgment. 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