US v. Christopher French, No. 20-4189 (4th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-4189 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER NAQUAN FRENCH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cr-00444-1) Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: September 28, 2020 Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlyle Sherrill, SHERRILL & CAMERON, PLLC, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant. Tanner Lawrence Kroeger, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Christopher Naquan French pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The district court sentenced him to 100 months of imprisonment, the low end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. French appealed. French’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning the reasonableness of French’s sentence. French was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not file one. The Government has declined to file a response brief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We review French’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We first ensure that the court “committed no significant procedural error,” such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, or inadequately explaining the sentence. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, we also review its substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We presume that a within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). French bears the burden to rebut this presumption “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. Our review of the record convinces us that French’s sentence is reasonable. The court properly calculated the applicable advisory Guidelines range, considered the parties’ 2 sentencing arguments, and provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence it imposed, grounded in § 3553(a) factors. French fails to rebut the presumption of substantive reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform French, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If French 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 French. 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.
