UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4178
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS JARRELL SHOFFNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00027-NCT-1)
Submitted: November 10, 2011 Decided: November 30, 2011
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Burell Shella, C. BURELL SHELLA, PC, Durham, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Jarrell Shoffner appeals his thirty-month
sentence for possessing a firearm as an unlawful drug user or
addict, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3), 924(a)(2)
(2006). Shoffner’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states
that he could identify no meritorious issues for appeal, but
requests that the court review Shoffner’s sentence for error. *
Having reviewed the record, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We first ensure that the
district court committed no significant procedural error, “such
as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)] factors, selecting
a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to
adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. If no procedural
error was committed, we review the sentence for substantive
reasonableness, taking into account the “totality of the
*
Despite receiving notice of his right to file a pro se
informal brief, Shoffner has not done so. The Government has
elected not to file a brief.
2
circumstances.” Id. In this respect, “an appellate court must
defer to the trial court and can reverse a sentence only if it
is unreasonable, even if the sentence would not have been the
choice of the appellate court.” United States v. Evans, 526
F.3d 155, 160 (4th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). A
sentence that falls within a properly calculated Guidelines
range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
Our review of the record reveals that Shoffner’s
within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. We discern no error
with respect to the district court’s computation of the
applicable Guidelines range, the opportunities it provided
Shoffner and his counsel to speak in mitigation, or its
explanation of the sentence imposed by reference to the factors
enumerated in § 3553(a). Nor does the record demonstrate any
reason to disturb the presumptive substantive reasonability of
Shoffner’s within-Guidelines sentence. Allen, 491 F.3d at 193.
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 judgment of the district court.
We also deny Shoffner’s pending pro se motion to substitute
counsel, as well as counsel’s pending motion to withdraw. This
court requires that counsel inform Shoffner, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
3
further review. If Shoffner requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may renew his motion for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Shoffner.
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
4