UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-4492
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHNATHAN MITCHELL GOODWIN, a/k/a Blaze,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cr-00164-RJC-DSC-2)
Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019
Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard L. Brown, LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. BROWN, JR., Monroe, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnathan Mitchell Goodwin pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, at least 50 grams of
methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), (846) (2012), and was sentenced to a total term
of 80 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Goodwin’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of Goodwin’s sentence. Although advised
of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Goodwin has not done so. We affirm.
We review Goodwin’s sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The court first
reviews for significant procedural error, and if the sentence is free from such error, we
then consider substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. Procedural error includes improperly
calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines range as mandatory,
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and failing to adequately
explain the selected sentence. Id. Substantive reasonableness is determined by
considering the totality of the circumstances, and if the sentence is within the properly-
calculated Guidelines range, this court applies a presumption of reasonableness. United
States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012). We have reviewed the record and
find that Goodwin’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform Goodwin, in writing, of his right to petition the
2
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Goodwin 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 Goodwin. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3