UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4259
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BERNARD WEITERS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00987-PMD-1)
Submitted: September 25, 2012 Decided: September 27, 2012
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua S. Kendrick, JOSHUA SNOW KENDRICK, P.C., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Weiters, Jr., appeals the 420-month sentence
imposed upon him after the disposition of his initial direct
appeal, in which we affirmed his convictions but vacated his
sentence and remanded his case to the district court for
resentencing in light of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.
L. No. 111–220, 124 Stat. 2372. Weiters’ 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 questions whether Weiters’ sentence was reasonable.
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 circumstances.” Id. A sentence that falls within a
properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
2
reasonable. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir.
2012).
Our review of the record convinces us that Weiters’
sentence is reasonable. We discern no error with respect to the
district court’s computation of the applicable Guidelines range,
the opportunities it provided Weiters and his counsel to speak
in mitigation, or its explanation of the sentence imposed by
reference to the factors enumerated in § 3553(a). We also find
nothing in this record to demonstrate any reason to disturb the
presumptive substantive reasonability of Weiters’ within-
Guidelines sentence. Susi, 674 F.3d at 289.
We have carefully reviewed the contentions contained
in Weiters’ pro se supplemental brief, and we conclude that each
of his challenges to his Guidelines computations is without
merit. To the extent that Weiters’ brief urges that his trial
counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the admission of
certain evidence, Weiters’ attempt to challenge his convictions
in this appeal is barred by the mandate rule. See Susi, 674
F.3d at 283-85. In any event, we observe that any inefficacy of
counsel is not conclusively demonstrated on the record and that
Weiters’ ineffectiveness claim is therefore not cognizable on
direct appeal and should instead be brought collaterally, if at
all. See United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th
Cir. 2010).
3
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.
This court requires that counsel inform Weiters, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Weiters 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 Weiters. 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