UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4460
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRED DESHAWN EDWARDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (7:16-cr-00928-BHH-1)
Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen,
III, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fred Deshawn Edwards pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012). The district court sentenced
Edwards to 70 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a 3-year term of supervised
release. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
seeking review of Edwards’ sentence without asserting any specific challenge to its
reasonableness. Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
Edwards has not done so. The Government has declined to file a response. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see United States v. White, 810
F.3d 212, 229 (4th Cir. 2016). In doing so, we examine the sentence for “significant
procedural error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18
U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We then
review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. “Any sentence that is within or
below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” White, 810
F.3d at 230 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence is both procedurally
and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the advisory
Guidelines range to be 70 to 87 months in prison and sufficiently explained the selected
2
sentence, which was at the bottom of that range. Furthermore, Edwards’ within-
Guidelines sentence is presumptively substantively reasonable, and nothing in the record
suggests a basis on which this presumption could be rebutted.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of
Anders and found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment
of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Edwards, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Edwards
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 Edwards. 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