USCA4 Appeal: 22-4137 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4137
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEDARIUS DEMONT PRINGLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:20-cr-00344-NCT-1)
Submitted: October 13, 2022 Decided: October 18, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Brittany S. Speas, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Jacob Darriel Pryor, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4137 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/18/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Ledarius Demont Pringle pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to being a felon
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The district
court sentenced Pringle to 41 months in prison, to be followed by three years’ supervised
release. Pringle’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but discussing the
reasonableness of Pringle’s sentence. Pringle has not filed a pro se supplemental brief
despite receiving notice of his right to do so. The Government has declined to file a
response brief. We affirm.
We review a criminal “sentence[ ]—whether inside, just outside, or significantly
outside the [Sentencing] Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We “first ensure that the district
court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors,
. . . or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51. If there is no significant
procedural error, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id.; see
United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). “Any sentence that is within
or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United
States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 230 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court properly
calculated the advisory Guidelines range, gave the parties the opportunity to argue for an
appropriate sentence, and sufficiently explained its reasons for Pringle’s within-Guidelines
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4137 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/18/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
sentence and for denying Pringle’s motion for a downward departure or variant sentence.
Pringle has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded his sentence.
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 criminal judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform Pringle, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Pringle 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 Pringle. 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