UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4306
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASON MICHAEL BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:14-cr-00167-MOC-1)
Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Parke Davis, Interim Executive Director, Jared P. Martin,
FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jason Michael Brown appeals his conviction and sentence of
240 months of imprisonment for transportation of child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1), (b)(1)
(2012), and possession of material containing child pornography,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(b), (b)(2) (2012).
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court committed a procedural error by applying a five-
level sentencing enhancement for pattern of activity. We affirm.
We review Brown’s sentence for reasonableness “under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.
McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 320
(2016). This review entails appellate consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Gall,
552 U.S. at 51. In assessing the district court’s calculation of
the Guidelines range, we review its legal conclusions de novo and
its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Cox, 744
F.3d 305, 308 (4th Cir. 2014).
Based on a review of the record, we conclude the district
court did not clearly err in crediting the child victim’s interview
statements in determining that she had been abused more than once.
2
Furthermore, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the
court properly calculated the Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory, gave the parties an
opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) factors, selected a sentence not based on
clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explained the chosen
sentence. Therefore, we conclude that Brown’s sentence is
procedurally reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Brown, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Brown 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 Brown.
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