UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4026
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ISAAC LEE SMATHERS, JR.,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00327-TDS-1)
Submitted: August 31, 2011 Decided: September 13, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin D. Porter, MORROW ALEXANDER PORTER & VERMITSKY, PLLC,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A.
DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Isaac Lee Smathers, Jr., appeals the 200-month
sentence imposed by the district court on remand following his
guilty plea to sexual exploitation of minors, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 2251(a) (West Supp. 2011). Smathers’s counsel filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning whether the district court’s downward variant
sentence was reasonable. Smathers was advised of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file one. Finding
no error, we affirm.
The sole issue raised by counsel is whether Smathers’s
sentence is reasonable. In reviewing a sentence, we must first
ensure that the district court did not commit any “significant
procedural error,” such as failing to properly calculate the
applicable Guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a)
factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Because Smathers
preserved his claim of error below, we review for reasonableness
under an abuse of discretion standard, reversing “unless . . .
the error was harmless.” United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572,
576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010); see Gall, 552 U.S. at 46. Our review
of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did
not commit procedural error in imposing Smathers’s sentence.
2
We next consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the
circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We may not presume an
outside-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable; we “may consider
the extent of the deviation, but must give due deference to the
district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a
whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id. Our review
leads us to conclude that the district court committed no
substantive error in imposing the sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Smathers, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Smathers requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Smathers. We therefore deny counsel’s motion to
withdraw at this time. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3