UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-4523
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW CHRISTOPHER ALLEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (9:17-cr-00979-RMG-1)
Submitted: January 22, 2019 Decided: January 24, 2019
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emily Deck Harrill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Emily Evans
Limehouse, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Christopher Allen appeals his 36-month sentence for making a false
statement during the attempted acquisition of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(a)(6), 924(a)(3) (2012). Allen’s attorney 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 Allen’s upward variant sentence is reasonable. Allen was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
“We ‘review all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’” United States v.
Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 517 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
(2007)). This review entails appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We consider whether the sentence
imposed is substantively reasonable based on “the totality of the circumstances.” Id.
“While a district court’s explanation for the sentence must support the degree of the
variance, it need not find extraordinary circumstances to justify a deviation from the
Guidelines.” United States v. Spencer, 848 F.3d 324, 327 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation
marks omitted). “We must defer to the district court and affirm a reasonable sentence, even
if we would have imposed something different.” United States v. Bolton, 858 F.3d 905,
915 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the district court properly calculated the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range
of 10 to 16 months’ imprisonment and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing an
upward variance after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. With respect to
2
the nature and circumstances of the offense, the court noted that Allen had made multiple
death threats to his wife and specifically found that Allen would have killed his wife had
he successfully acquired a gun. With respect to the court’s consideration of the history and
characteristics of the defendant, the court observed that Allen and his wife had a violent
relationship and that Allen had difficulty controlling his anger. The court also explained
that it had considered the need to promote respect for the law, the need for deterrence, and
the need to protect the public from further crimes by Allen. Although Allen argues that his
sentence creates an unwarranted disparity compared to defendants with similar records,
there is nothing to suggest that those cases involved facts similar to Allen’s case, especially
in light of the district court’s finding that Allen would have killed his wife had he
successfully acquired a gun. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in varying upward and that Allen’s 36-month sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
identified no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Allen, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Allen 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 Allen. 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