US v. Kevin Stanfield, Jr., No. 13-4450 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4450 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN LAMONT STANFIELD, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00256-RJC-7) Submitted: November 19, 2013 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Circuit Decided: November 21, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence W. Hewitt, GUTHRIE, DAVIS, HENDERSON & STATON, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Lamont Stanfield, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2012). The district court downwardly varied from the fifty-seven to seventy-one-month concurrent Guidelines forty-two-month range, prison sentencing terms. Stanfield Stanfield to timely appealed. Counsel has filed a brief, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether Stanfield s sentence is greater than necessary to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). Stanfield was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not file one. We Finding no error, we affirm. review the district court s sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range[,] . . standard. of examine the the under a deferential abuse-of-discretion Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). standard under . review involves sentence second, we for two steps; significant review the 2 under the procedural substance of first, errors, the This we and sentence. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, (analyzing Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51). 473 (4th Cir. 2007) Significant procedural errors include failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If there are no significant procedural errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances. If the sentence is within or below the properly Id. calculated Guidelines range, this Court applies a presumption on appeal that the sentence is substantively reasonable. Yooho Weon, 722 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. United States v. 2013). Such a presumption is rebutted only if the defendant shows that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). reviewed the Guidelines record sentence and is conclude both that procedurally Stanfield s and We have below- substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 3 We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Stanfield, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Stanfield requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. was served on in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof Stanfield. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4