US v. Christopher Abernathy, No. 19-4283 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-4283 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER L. ABERNATHY, a/k/a Christopher L. Abernathy, Jr., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (7:18-cr-00928-DCC-1) Submitted: November 1, 2019 Decided: November 7, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher L. Abernathy pled guilty to one count of making counterfeit money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471 (2012). Abernathy’s 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 Abernathy’s 24-month sentence is reasonable. We affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If there are no procedural errors, then we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. A sentence is presumptively substantively reasonable if it “is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range,” 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 have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not commit procedural error, and Abernathy fails to rebut the presumption that his sentence is substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated his Guidelines range and 2 reasonably determined that a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range was appropriate in this case. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm Abernathy’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Abernathy, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Abernathy 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 Abernathy. 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
