United States v. Daniel Pulley

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4389

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

DANIEL PULLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:15-cr-00372-TMC-1)

Submitted: January 26, 2017 Decided: February 7, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit
Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Daniel Pulley pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to

possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and

distribution of cocaine base. The district court sentenced him

to 151 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there

are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether

Pulley’s sentence is reasonable. Pulley was advised of his

right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We

affirm.

We review a sentence for procedural and substantive

reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.

Berry, 814 F.3d 192, 194-95 (4th Cir. 2016). In determining

whether a sentence is procedurally reasonable, we consider

whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s

advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an

opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence based on

facts that were not clearly erroneous, and sufficiently

explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51. Only

after determining that a sentence is procedurally reasonable

will we consider its substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into

account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “Any

2
sentence that is within or below a properly calculated

Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.

Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the

sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295,

306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

Our review of the sentencing transcript reveals no

procedural sentencing errors, and we conclude that Pulley has

not rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence

is substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have

reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no

meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the

district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel

inform Pulley, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme

Court of the United States for further review. If Pulley

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 Pulley. 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