Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04296/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04296-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Althea Mack
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4296 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/03/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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 a sentence for procedural and substantive 

reasonableness, applying “an abuse-of-discretion standard.” 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If we find no 

procedural error, we examine the substantive reasonableness of a 

sentence under “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. We 

presume on appeal that a within-Guidelines sentence is 

substantively reasonable. 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. 

Appeal: 15-4296 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/03/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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 sort of drug user the program was designed to

assist. We also conclude that the 24-month sentence imposed by 

the district court is reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

In accordance with 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 such a petition would be frivolous, 

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. 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. 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

Appeal: 15-4296 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/03/2015 Pg: 3 of 3