UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4916
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM LEE ANDERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00028-GMG-DJJ-1)
Submitted: April 17, 2013 Decided: April 26, 2013
Before DAVIS, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicholas J. Compton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristen
M. Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Lee Anderson pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute
9.64 grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2006). He was sentenced to 188 months’
imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there
are no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal, but asking us to review
the reasonableness of the sentence. Although advised of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Anderson has not done
so. We affirm.
We review Anderson’s sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). This review requires
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. We first assess
whether the district court properly calculated the advisory
Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006), analyzed any arguments presented by the
parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.
at 49–51; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th
Cir. 2010). If there is no procedural error, we review the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “examin[ing] the
totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing
2
court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it
chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United
States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
If the sentence is within the defendant’s properly calculated
Guidelines range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness.
United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008); see
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007) (permitting
appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines
sentence).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that the sentence is both procedurally and substantively
reasonable. We discern no error in the district court’s
computation of Anderson’s Guidelines range, the opportunities it
provided Anderson and his counsel to speak in mitigation, or its
explanation of the sentence imposed by reference to the
§ 3553(a) factors it deemed most relevant in this case. In the
course of explaining the reasons for the selected sentence, the
district court adequately responded to the arguments counsel
advanced in support of a downward variance, which were not
persuasive when compared to Anderson’s chronic recidivism and
demonstrated lack of respect for the law. Lastly, we have found
no basis in the record to overcome the presumption of
reasonableness accorded this properly calculated, within-
Guidelines sentence.
3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Anderson’s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered and
supported by an independent basis in fact. We therefore affirm
the judgment of the district court. This court requires that
counsel inform Anderson, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Anderson 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
Anderson. 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
4