UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4421
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON TREMAYNE HOLMAN,
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-00428-CCE-1)
Submitted: March 30, 2016 Decided: May 17, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Josiah J. Corrigan, PERRY, PERRY & PERRY, Kinston, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Tremayne Holman appeals his conviction and 84-month
sentence after pleading guilty to possession with intent to
distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(C) (2012). Holman’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
Holman’s guilty plea was valid and whether Holman’s sentence was
reasonable. Holman has filed supplemental Anders briefs
challenging his sentence and arguing that the arresting
authorities violated his due process rights by failing to comply
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a). We affirm.
We conclude that no reversible error occurred during
Holman’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and that the district court
had an ample factual basis from which to accept Holman’s guilty
plea. In addition, Holman’s due process claim is meritless, for
he was arrested following the return of a proper indictment, and
thus the requirements of Rule 5(a) are inapplicable. See United
States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 226 n.4 (4th Cir. 2008).
Turning to Holman’s sentence, 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
2
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 Holman’s sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court
properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, discussed the
applicable § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained its
reasons for imposing the sentence Holman received. In addition,
Holman has not made the showing necessary to rebut the
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.
This court requires that counsel inform Holman, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
3
further review. If Holman 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 Holman.
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