UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4038
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHNNY C. SMITH, II,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00242-WO-1)
Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny C. Smith, II, pled guilty to one count of distributing
cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(c) (2012). The district court sentenced him to 84 months’
imprisonment and five years of supervised release. On appeal,
Smith’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his opinion, that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning
whether the district court erred when it imposed Smith’s sentence.
Smith was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief
but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review Smith’s sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “The first step in this
review requires us to ‘ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error, such as . . . improperly calculating
. . . the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d
377, 387 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). We then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed,
taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552
U.S. at 51. At this stage of review, we presume that a sentence
within a properly calculated guideline range is reasonable. United
States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). Additionally,
we “review the district court’s calculation of the quantity of
drugs attributable to a defendant for sentencing purposes for clear
2
error.” United States v. Slade, 631 F.3d 185, 188 (4th Cir. 2011)
(quotation and citation omitted).
We have reviewed the record and find Smith’s sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court did
not err when it reduced the drug quantity attributable to Smith.
The district court correctly determined Smith faced an adjusted
offense level, absent the career offender guideline, of twenty-
five, and a criminal history category of three. Finally, the
district court reasonably determined that a sentence within
Smith’s advisory guideline range of 70 to 87 months was
appropriate.
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 Smith, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Smith 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 Smith.
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