US v. Reginald Anderson, No. 14-4191 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4191 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. REGINALD ANDERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00012-1) Submitted: September 16, 2014 Decided: October 1, 2014 Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Steven Hunter, STEVE HUNTER & ASSOCIATES, L.C., Lewisburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Reginald Anderson pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). The district court calculated range sixteen Anderson s months, Anderson to advisory imposed twenty-four an Guidelines upward months variance, as and imprisonment. ten to sentenced He appeals. Anderson s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts that there are no meritorious Anderson s sentence. issues for appeal but challenges Although advised of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Anderson has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. We review the district court s sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range[,] . . standard. of examine the United the under a deferential abuse-of-discretion Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). standard under . review involves sentence second, States v. we for steps; significant review Pauley, two 511 the under procedural substance F.3d 468, (analyzing Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51). the 473 of This first, errors, the (4th we and sentence. Cir. 2007) Significant procedural errors include failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating 2 the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] 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. 552 U.S. at 51. Gall, 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. Id. When the district court imposes a variant sentence, we consider whether the . . . court acted reasonably both with respect to its decision respect to the extent range. to of impose the such a divergence sentence from the and with sentencing United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 (4th Cir. 2007). Such a sentence is unreasonable if the district court provided an inadequate statement of reasons or relie[d] on improper factors in imposing a sentence outside the properly calculated advisory sentencing range. After Anderson the hearing opportunity argument for from Id. counsel allocution, the and district giving court concluded that an upward variance under § 3553(a) to twenty-four months imprisonment was necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing. considered In reaching this conclusion, the court properly Anderson s history and characteristics, his underrepresented criminal history, the fact that he was a repeat 3 offender, and the need for the sentence to afford adequate deterrence. The U.S.C. § district 3553(a) court s factors consideration and of articulation relevant of the 18 reasons warranting an upward variance from the Guidelines range support our decision to defer to the district court s determination as to the extent of the variance. 630 F.3d 359, reasonableness Guidelines 366-67 of range (4th variance because United States v. Diosdado-Star, Cir. 2011) sentence sentence (affirming six was years based substantive greater on the than district court s examination of relevant § 3553(a) factors). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. motion to withdraw brief, is from denied. representation, This Court requires as set that Counsel s forth in counsel his inform Anderson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. that a petition be filed, but counsel If Anderson requests 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 Anderson. we dispense with oral argument 4 because the facts Finally, and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
