US v. David Treadway, No. 13-4613 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4613 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID WESLEY TREADWAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:13-cr-00013-FPS-JES-4) Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 23, 2014 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William L. Pennington, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen L. Vogrin, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Wesley Treadway appeals the eighteen-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to aiding and abetting the distribution violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2012). of cocaine base, in In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Treadway s counsel has filed a brief certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but denying questioning Treadway s whether request the for district a court probationary erred in sentence. Treadway has not filed a supplemental brief despite receiving notice of his right to do so. We affirm. We review Treadway s sentence for reasonableness, using an abuse of discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. We first review for significant procedural errors, including improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, sentencing under clearly erroneous sentence. facts, or failing to adequately explain the Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 160-61 (4th Cir. 2008). Only if we conclude a sentence is we procedurally reasonableness. reasonable may consider its substantive United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, the district court correctly calculated Treadway s Guidelines range and fully explained 2 its reasoning supporting Treadway s sentence, including its rejection of Treadway s request for a downward departure or variance. that the sentence is procedurally and Accordingly, we conclude substantively reasonable. See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (affording within-Guidelines range sentence presumption of reasonableness on appeal). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and therefore have found affirm the no meritorious district court s grounds for appeal. This judgment. We court requires that counsel inform Treadway, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Treadway requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that counsel may in move representation. such this a petition court for would leave to be frivolous, withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Treadway. 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
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.
