UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4806
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EMANUAL SHORTEN, a/k/a Terez, a/k/a T-Man,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (3:14-cr-00750-TLW-1)
Submitted: August 31, 2016 Decided: September 14, 2016
Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis H. Lang, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. James Hunter May, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Emanual Shorten appeals the sentence imposed after he pled
guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to
distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base and 5 kilograms or
more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A),
846 (2012). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has found no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the
district court should have granted a variance based on Shorten’s
family support and the sentencing disparity between cocaine base
and powder cocaine. Shorten was advised of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Shorten.
See United States v. Martinovich, 810 F.3d 232, 242 (4th Cir. 2016)
(stating standard of review). We discern no procedural sentencing
error, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and
Shorten has failed to rebut the presumption that his within-
Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable, see United
States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm Shorten’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Shorten, in writing, of his
2
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Shorten requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel
may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Shorten. 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