US v. Althea Mack, No. 15-4296 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4296 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALTHEA MACK, a/k/a Tee, a/k/a Althea Williams, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (3:14-cr-00299-TLW-5) Submitted: November 30, 2015 Decided: December 3, 2015 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howard W. Anderson III, LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD W. ANDERSON III, LLC, Pendleton, South Carolina, for Appellant. Winston David Holliday, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Althea Mack appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after she pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(C), 846 (2012). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has found no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising potential issues regarding the district court’s denial of Mack’s request to participate in the BRIDGE program and the reasonableness of her sentence. Mack was also advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. We review reasonableness, a sentence applying for “an procedural and substantive abuse-of-discretion Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). standard.” If we find no procedural error, we examine the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under “the totality of the circumstances.” presume on appeal that substantively reasonable. a within-Guidelines Id. We sentence is United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). The defendant can rebut that presumption only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. 2 We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Mack’s request to participate in the BRIDGE program because she was not the assist. sort of drug user the was designed to We also conclude that the 24-month sentence imposed by the district court is reasonable. In program accordance with See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Mack, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Mack 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 his client. We deny counsel’s current motion to withdraw at this juncture, and deny as moot Mack’s motion for an expedited decision. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
