UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4673
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PATRICK W. GANIM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00019-IMK-MJA-1)
Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Kristen M. Leddy, Research
and Writing Specialist, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sarah W. Montoro,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick W. Ganim pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to interstate travel with intent to engage in illicit
sexual conduct, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)(2012), and was sentenced to
a within-Guidelines term of 130 months’ imprisonment. He noted
a timely appeal. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning the
reasonableness of Ganim’s sentence. Although informed of his
right to do so, Ganim has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Finding no error, we affirm.
We review Ganim’s sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 46 (2007). Our review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We first assess whether the district
court properly calculated the advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012), analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at
49–51. 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
2
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 . . . § 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 Ganim’s sentence is procedurally and
substantively reasonable. The district court correctly
calculated Ganim’s Guidelines range, listened to counsel’s
arguments, and adequately explained its reasons for imposing the
130–month sentence. Further, Ganim offers nothing to rebut the
presumption of substantive reasonableness this court affords his
within-Guidelines sentence. We thus conclude that Ganim’s
sentence is reasonable.
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 Ganim, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Ganim 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 Ganim. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
3
legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4