US v. Daniel Pulley, No. 16-4389 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4389 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DANIEL PULLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:15-cr-00372-TMC-1) Submitted: January 26, 2017 Before GREGORY, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and NIEMEYER February 7, 2017 and KING, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Pulley pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribution of cocaine base. to 151 months’ imprisonment. distribute cocaine base and The district court sentenced him Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Pulley’s sentence is reasonable. Pulley was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We affirm. We review a sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Berry, 814 F.3d 192, 194-95 (4th Cir. 2016). whether a sentence is procedurally In determining reasonable, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence based on facts that were not clearly explained the selected sentence. after determining that a erroneous, and sufficiently Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51. sentence is procedurally Only reasonable will we consider its substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” 2 Id. at 51. “Any sentence that Guidelines is range within is or below presumptively a properly calculated [substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Our review of the sentencing transcript reveals no procedural sentencing errors, and we conclude that Pulley has not rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed in the meritorious entire grounds record for this appeal. district court’s judgment. case We and have therefore found affirm no the This court requires that counsel inform Pulley, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Pulley 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 Pulley. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not 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.
