US v. Ronnie Clark, No. 21-4516 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-4516 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONNIE NELSON CLARK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cr-00381-WO-1) Submitted: May 24, 2022 Decided: May 26, 2022 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS & TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. K. P. Kennedy Gates, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie Nelson Clark pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), (b)(1). The district court sentenced Clark to 327 months’ imprisonment. Clark appeals. Clark’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning the reasonableness of the sentence. Clark has filed a pro se supplemental brief asking the court to “decrease or overturn” his sentence. We affirm. We review Clark’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We first ensure that the court “committed no significant procedural error,” such as improperly calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, or inadequately explaining the sentence. United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 170 (4th Cir. 2014). If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, we also review its substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We presume that a within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). Clark bears the burden to rebut this presumption “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. Our review of the record convinces us that Clark’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the applicable advisory 2 Guidelines range, considered the parties’ sentencing arguments, and adequately explained its reasons for the sentence imposed. Clark fails to rebut the presumption of substantive reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. Id. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Clark, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Clark 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 Clark. 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 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.
