US v. Quinton Wall, No. 13-4715 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4715 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. QUINTON ANTONIO WALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cr-00452-WO-1) Submitted: April 28, 2014 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 7, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Quentin Antonio Wall appeals the ninety-eight-month sentence imposed by the district curt following his guilty plea to distribution of § 841(a)(1) (2012). cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Wall s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but procedural reasonableness of Wall s sentence. questioning the Wall was notified of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief but has not done so. Following careful review of the record, we affirm. Wall adequately asserts address that his the district mitigating court did sentencing not arguments, including that he normally dealt in powder cocaine and that the court placed undue weight on his criminal history. belies Wall s claim. followed all The record In sentencing Wall, the district court necessary procedural steps, properly calculating the Guidelines range, considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors and the parties arguments, and providing individualized assessment based on the facts presented. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). an See Wall s below-Guidelines sentence is presumed substantively reasonable on appeal, presumption. and he has not met his burden to rebut this United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th 2 Cir. 2006). Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Wall. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. affirm the district court s judgment. We therefore This court requires that counsel inform Wall, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Wall 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 Wall. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
