UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-4895
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES ALBERT SLONAKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:18-cr-00044-GMG-RWT-1)
Submitted: July 16, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicholas J. Compton, Assistant Federal Public Defender Kristen M. Leddy, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Jeffrey Akira Finucane, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Albert Slonaker pled guilty to failure to surrender for service of a sentence,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (2012), and the district court sentenced him to 24
months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. On appeal, counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning the reasonableness of Slonaker’s sentence.
Although advised of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Slonaker has not done
so. The Government declined to file a response brief. We affirm.
“We review the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [(2012)]
using an abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of ‘whether the sentence is inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d
106, 111 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007) (alteration
omitted)). This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. In determining procedural reasonableness, 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) sentencing factors, and sufficiently
explained the selected sentence. Id. at 111-12. After determining that the sentence is
procedurally reasonable, we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. “Any
sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). “Such a
2
presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
Our review of the sentencing transcript reveals no significant procedural or
substantive errors. The district court allowed the parties to present arguments, gave
Slonaker the opportunity to allocute, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors, and explained the selected sentence. Slonaker’s sentence of 24 months’
imprisonment falls squarely in the middle of his properly calculated advisory Guidelines
range of 21 to 27 months, and the court ordered that the sentence run consecutive to
Slonaker’s other pending sentence, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3146(b)(2) (2012).
Nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that Slonaker’s within-Guidelines sentence
is substantively 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 criminal judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Slonaker, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Slonaker 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 Slonaker.
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