UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4323
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANGIE RENEE MORTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:16-cr-00304-WO-2)
Submitted: November 30, 2017 Decided: January 8, 2018
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryan Gates, Jr., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Angie Renee Morton pleaded guilty to obtaining oxycodone by fraud, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(3) (2012). The district court sentenced Morton to 18 months of
imprisonment, followed by 1 year of supervised release, and she now appeals. Appellate
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether the sentence is reasonable. Morton was advised of her right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see also United States v. White,
810 F.3d 212, 229 (4th Cir.), cert. denied. 136 S. Ct. 1833 (2016). In so doing, we
examine the sentence for “significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate (or
improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory,
failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence based
on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall,
552 U.S. at 51. We then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. “Any
sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable.” White, 810 F.3d at 230 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the
advisory Guidelines range and sufficiently explained the sentence. In addition, Morton’s
within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable and we conclude that Morton has
not rebutted that presumption.
2
We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of
Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Morton, in writing,
of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Morton 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 Morton. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3