UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4389
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DANIEL PULLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:15-cr-00372-TMC-1)
Submitted: January 26, 2017 Decided: February 7, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Pulley pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and
distribution of cocaine base. The district court sentenced him
to 151 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
Pulley’s sentence is reasonable. Pulley was advised of his
right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We
affirm.
We review a sentence for procedural and substantive
reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.
Berry, 814 F.3d 192, 194-95 (4th Cir. 2016). In determining
whether a sentence is procedurally reasonable, we consider
whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an
opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence based on
facts that were not clearly erroneous, and sufficiently
explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51. Only
after determining that a sentence is procedurally reasonable
will we consider its substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into
account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “Any
2
sentence that is within or below a properly calculated
Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.
Such a 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) (citation omitted).
Our review of the sentencing transcript reveals no
procedural sentencing errors, and we conclude that Pulley has
not rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence
is substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have
reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no
meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the
district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel
inform Pulley, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Pulley
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 Pulley. 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