UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4093
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADRIAN DEMARCUS PERKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00053-RLV-DCK-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: November 2, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wm. Grayson Lambert, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adrian Demarcus Perkins appeals the district court’s
judgment after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession
with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The district court
sentenced Perkins at the low end of his Guidelines range to 97
months in prison. Perkins’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the
issue of whether his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Perkins was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but he has not done so. We affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir. 2015) (citing Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). We first consider whether the
district court committed a significant procedural error, such as
improperly calculating the Guidelines range. Gall, 552 U.S. at
51. If the sentence is procedurally reasonable, we consider its
substantive reasonableness, taking into account the totality of
the circumstances. Id. We presume that a sentence within or
below the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United
States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012). This
presumption can only be rebutted by showing the sentence is
2
unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Perkins’
sentence is reasonable, and the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing him at the low end of his Guidelines
range. The district court considered the parties’ arguments and
made an individualized assessment based on the facts presented,
applied relevant § 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances
of the case and the defendant, and adequately explained its
sentence. We therefore give due deference to its “reasoned and
reasonable decision” that the § 3553(a) factors justified the
sentence. See United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 367
(4th Cir. 2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform his or her client, in writing, of his or her
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client 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 the client. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4