Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0894-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hodges ANTHONY, Jr., a/k/a Curley Head, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-5155.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 31, 2012.
    Decided: Aug. 2, 2012.
    Jonathan M. Milling, Milling Law Firm, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Robert C. Jendron, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM Opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Hodges Anthony, Jr., pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The district court sentenced Anthony to 108 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.

On appeal, Anthony argues that the sentence imposed by the district court is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir.2009).

In so doing, we examine the sentence for “significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [ (2006) ] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Finally, we “consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.” Id. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not procedurally err in sentencing Anthony and that the sentence is also substantively reasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.