UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5155
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
HODGES ANTHONY, JR., a/k/a Curley Head,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:09-cr-01109-JFA-1)
Submitted: July 31, 2012 Decided: August 2, 2012
Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan M. Milling, MILLING LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney, Robert C. Jendron, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hodges Anthony, Jr., pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute and distribute cocaine and
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The
district court sentenced Anthony to 108 months of imprisonment
and he now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Anthony argues that the sentence imposed by
the district court is procedurally and substantively
unreasonable. 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 States v. Layton, 564 F.3d
330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009).
In so doing, we 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 “consider
the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.” Id.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not procedurally err in sentencing Anthony
and that the sentence is also substantively reasonable.
2
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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
3