UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4277
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES MATTHEW GREER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00405-CCE-2)
Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS AND TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Kimberly Furr Davis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Matthew Greer and a co-defendant robbed a Walgreens
pharmacy of controlled substances. Greer pled guilty to
interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1951 & 2 (2015). The district court sentenced him to 102
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 propriety of the sentencing enhancements for
brandishing a firearm and for physically restraining a person
during the offense. Greer has filed a pro se supplemental brief,
asserting these same issues. We affirm.
We review Greer’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
2
goals of sentencing. See 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). Greer 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 Greer’s sentence is
reasonable. The district court properly determined Greer’s
offense level, including the two challenged enhancements. During
the commission of the robbery, Greer’s co-defendant brandished a
firearm. This qualifies Greer for the enhancement, which provides
for a five-level enhancement “if a firearm was brandished or
possessed.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) (2015).
A two-level enhancement is imposed “if any person was
physically restrained to facilitate commission of the offense.”
USSG § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B). This enhancement was properly applied
based on the fact that the night manager of the store was ordered
to lay face-down on the ground and Greer stood over him and did
not allow him to get up while Greer’s co-defendant directed the
pharmacist to place the narcotics inside a plastic bag.
The court correctly calculated Greer’s Guidelines range as
100-125 months, heard arguments from both parties, considered the
sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and explained its
3
rationale for the sentence it imposed. We conclude that the court
adequately explained its reasons for the sentence imposed and that
the 102-month sentence is not unreasonable and not an abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th
Cir. 2007) (applying an appellate presumption of reasonableness to
a sentence imposed within a properly calculated advisory
Guidelines range); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-
Guidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Greer’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Greer, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Greer requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Greer. 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