UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4048
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
REGINALD REID, a/k/a Reginald Raquan Reid,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00106-CMC-1)
Submitted: December 9, 2011 Decided: January 9, 2012
Before DAVIS, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Anne
Hunter Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A federal jury convicted Reginald Reid of two counts
of falsely representing a social security number to be his to
obtain something of value, in violation of 42 U.S.C.A.
§ 408(a)(7)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). The district court
sentenced Reid to a total of twenty-four months of imprisonment
and he now appeals. Appellate counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether the district court erred in denying Reid’s
motion for a judgment of acquittal and in calculating the
advisory Guidelines range. Reid has also filed pro se
supplemental briefs raising additional issues. * Finding no
error, we affirm.
Counsel first questions whether the district court
erred in denying Reid’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. We
review a district court’s decision to deny a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29
motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo. United States v.
Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir. 2006). A defendant
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy
burden. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.
1997). The verdict of a jury must be sustained “if, viewing the
*
We have considered the issues raised in Reid’s pro se
briefs and conclude that they lack merit.
2
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the
verdict is supported by ‘substantial evidence.’” Smith, 451
F.3d at 216 (citations omitted). Substantial evidence is
“evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as
adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). “Reversal for insufficient evidence is
reserved for the rare case where the prosecution’s failure is
clear.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
To convict Reid of the offenses, the Government had to
prove that Reid “(1) falsely represented a number to be [his]
social security number (2) with the intent to deceive another
person (3) for the purpose of obtaining something of value.”
United States v. Sparks, 67 F.3d 1145, 1152 (4th Cir. 1995)
(citation omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and
conclude that the Government provided substantial evidence of
Reid’s guilt of the offenses and the district court did not
therefore err in denying Reid’s motion for a judgment of
acquittal.
Counsel next questions whether the district court
erred in calculating the criminal history category applicable to
Reid under the advisory Guidelines. We review a sentence for
reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United
3
States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In so doing, we first examine the
sentence for “significant procedural error,” including “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.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Finally,
we then “consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed.” Id. We will presume on appeal that a sentence within
a properly calculated advisory Guidelines range is reasonable.
United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding
presumption of reasonableness for within—Guidelines sentence).
Moreover, in reviewing the district court’s
calculations under the Guidelines, “we review the district
court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for
clear error.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th
Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation
omitted). We will “find clear error only if, on the entire
evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed.” Id. at 631 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). We conclude that the district
court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range.
4
Moreover, the court considered the advisory Guidelines range,
the § 3553(a) factors, the parties’ arguments, and adequately
explained the chosen sentence. See United States v. Carter, 564
F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (district court must conduct
individualized assessment based on the particular facts of each
case, whether sentence is above, below, or within the guidelines
range).
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Reid, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Reid 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 Reid. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5