US v. Tre's Davis, No. 12-4568 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4568 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. TRE S DAVIS, a/k/a Trey Davis, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:12-cr-00031-1) Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Schles, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Steven Loew, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tre s Davis pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006), and distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2006), and was sentenced to 63 months imprisonment. Davis counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of Davis sentence. Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Davis has not done so. We affirm. We review Davis sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard. U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). After determining whether the district court correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, this court must decide whether the court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed the arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575 76; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). If the sentence is free of significant procedural error, this court will review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575; United States v. Pauley, 2 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). a sentence within reasonable. a In doing so, we presume that properly-calculated Guidelines range is Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Davis sentence Moreover, is both Davis procedurally has failed and to substantively overcome the reasonable. presumption of reasonableness we accord his within-Guidelines sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Davis conviction and counsel s request to withdraw at this time. sentence. We deny This court requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Davis requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may again move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Davis. 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.
