USCA4 Appeal: 23-4197 Doc: 18 Filed: 08/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4197
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD ISIAH PIERCE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:22-cr-00014-TDS-1)
Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 28, 2023
Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Tiffany T. McGregor, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Margaret McCall Reece, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4197 Doc: 18 Filed: 08/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Richard Isiah Pierce appeals the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty
plea, without a written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2018). * Pierce’s counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Pierce’s sentence, which falls
within his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, is reasonable. Although he was informed
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Pierce has not done so. The Government
has declined to file a response brief. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.
Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “First,
we ‘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) factors, selecting a sentence based
on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.’” United
States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552
*
Section 924(a)(2) was amended and no longer provides the penalty for § 922(g)
convictions; the new penalty provision in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8) sets forth a statutory
maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for a § 922(g) offense. See Bipartisan Safer
Communities Act, Pub. L. No. 117-159, § 12004(c), 136 Stat. 1313, 1329 (2022). The
15-year statutory maximum does not apply in this case, however, because Pierce’s offense
was committed before the June 25, 2022, amendment to the statute.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4197 Doc: 18 Filed: 08/28/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). “If the sentence ‘is procedurally sound, [we] should then consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence,’ taking into account the totality of the
circumstances.” United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Any sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is
presumptively reasonable, and the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. United States v.
White, 810 F.3d 212, 230 (4th Cir. 2016).
We conclude that Pierce’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.
The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range, to which Pierce did not object,
and thoroughly explained why it imposed Pierce’s 42-month custodial sentence and term
of supervised release. In addition, Pierce fails to overcome the presumption of
reasonableness that we afford his within-Guidelines sentence. We have reviewed the
record in accordance with Anders and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform
Pierce, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Pierce 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 Pierce.
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