UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4570
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
VICTOR PLOWDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:11-cr-00399-WO-1)
Submitted: January 15, 2013 Decided: February 8, 2013
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P.
Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant
United States Attorney, Timothy Nicholas Matkins, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Victor Plowden appeals the district court’s judgment
imposing a 162-month sentence following his guilty plea to
obstruction of commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951(a) (2006). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questioning whether the district court imposed a substantively
unreasonable sentence. Plowden was notified of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The
Government has declined to file a response brief. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We must first ensure that the
district court committed no significant procedural error, such
as improper calculation of the Guidelines range, insufficient
consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and the
parties’ sentencing arguments, and inadequate explanation of the
sentence imposed. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th
Cir. 2010). If the sentence is free from significant procedural
error, we also review the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. Id. The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but
not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of
sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A within-Guidelines sentence
2
is presumed reasonable on appeal, and the defendant bears the
burden to “rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a)
factors.” See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379
(4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, we discern no
procedural error in the district court’s sentence. Further, we
conclude that neither Plowden nor the available record rebuts
the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines
sentence. See id.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Plowden, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Plowden 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 Plowden.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4