USCA4 Appeal: 19-4071 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/24/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4071
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRENDAN JAMAL HOLT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:18-cr-00102-CCE-1)
Submitted: February 10, 2022 Decided: February 24, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Whitney N. Shaffer, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Ashley E. Waid, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 19-4071 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/24/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Brendan Jamal Holt appeals his convictions and 186-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to attempted Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951(a), and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Counsel for Holt has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning the substantive reasonableness of Holt’s sentence. Although notified of his
right to do so, Holt has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. For the reasons that follow,
we affirm.
We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Before assessing substantive
reasonableness, we must first determine whether the sentence is procedurally reasonable.
See United States v. Webb, 965 F.3d 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2020). In doing so, 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) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected
sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51.
At sentencing, the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, allowed
the parties to argue for an appropriate sentence, offered Holt a chance to address the court,
and considered the § 3553(a) factors while thoroughly explaining its sentencing decision.
Thus, we discern no procedural error.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 19-4071 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/24/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
If a sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” then we review it for
substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Gall,
552 U.S. at 51. In view of Holt’s extensive criminal history, the seriousness of the instant
offense conduct, and the need to protect the public from Holt’s further criminal acts, we
conclude that the district court acted well within its discretion in finding that a 186-month
prison sentence was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to satisfy the goals of
sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Furthermore, we see nothing in the record that would
rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to Holt’s within-Guidelines sentence.
See United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Holt’s criminal judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Holt, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Holt 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 Holt.
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