UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4109
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA HOOD,
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-00092-IMK-MJA-1)
Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tracy Weese, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda
Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Hood pled guilty to transportation of child
pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(A)(a)(1), (b)(1) (2012). The
district court sentenced him to 240 months’ imprisonment. Counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no meritorious
issues for appeal, but questioning the validity of Hood’s guilty
plea and the reasonableness of the sentence. Hood has filed a pro
se supplemental brief, addressing these same issues. We affirm.
We have reviewed the plea agreement and the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearing, and we conclude that Hood’s guilty plea were knowing
and voluntary. Accordingly, we affirm Hood’s conviction.
We review Hood’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We must first determine whether the
district court committed significant procedural error, such as
incorrect calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines range,
inadequate consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors,
or insufficient explanation of the sentence imposed. United States
v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 170 (4th Cir. 2014). If we find no
procedural error, we also examine the substantive reasonableness
of the sentence under “the totality of the circumstances.” Gall,
552 U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not
greater than necessary,” to satisfy the goals of sentencing. See
2
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We presume on appeal that a within-Guidelines
sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. Louthian,
756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). Hood bears the burden to rebut
this presumption “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
Our review of the record reveals that Hood’s sentence is
reasonable. * The district court properly calculated Hood’s
Guidelines range as 240 months, heard arguments from both parties,
considered the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and
explained its rationale for the sentence it imposed.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Hood’s conviction and sentence. We deny without
prejudice counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court requires that
counsel inform Hood, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hood
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such
a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court
* Although the two-level increase to Hood’s offense level
pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G2.1 (2015), was
erroneously applied, we find this error harmless. See United
States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 283 (4th Cir. 2010) (sentencing
error is harmless if resulting sentence is no longer than sentence
to which defendant would otherwise be subject). Hood’s properly
calculated advisory Guidelines range without this increase exceeds
the statutory maximum sentence for this offense; thus, Hood’s
Guidelines range of 240 months is unchanged.
3
for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Hood. 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