UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4123
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
PRESTON POTTS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cr-00052-RJC-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert C. Carpenter, ADAMS, HENDON, CARSON, CROW AND SAENGER,
P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth
Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Preston Potts pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute oxycodone, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012). Potts was
sentenced to 121 months’ imprisonment. His counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
raising for the court’s consideration whether the district court
made a procedural error in applying a sentencing enhancement for
Potts’ role in the offense. Potts did not file a pro se
supplemental brief. The Government did not file a brief. After
a careful review of the record, we affirm.
We review a sentence’s procedural and substantive
reasonableness for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 527-28 (4th Cir. 2014). We first review
for procedural errors such as improper calculation of the
Sentencing Guidelines range, failure to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors, selection of a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failure to adequately
explain the sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). Absent any procedural error, we examine the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence under “the totality of the
circumstances.” Id. Sentences within or below a properly
calculated Guidelines range are presumed substantively
2
reasonable, and this “presumption can only be rebutted by
showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian,
756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). We review a
within-Guidelines sentence for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576-77 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating
standard of review).
We conclude that the district court did not err in applying
the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(a) (2014)
enhancement. Further, we conclude that the district court’s
within-Guidelines sentence is both procedurally and
substantively reasonable and not an abuse of discretion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Potts’ conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Potts, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Potts 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 Potts. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4