UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-4042

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

APRIL DAWN STILTNER, a/k/a April Laughlin, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief 

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-jpj-pms-18) 

Submitted: July 14, 2009 Decided: August 4, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Neil A. Horn, NEIL HORN, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. 

Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 April Dawn Stiltner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to 

distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base 

and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The 

district court sentenced Stiltner to 120 months of imprisonment. 

Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that there 

are no meritorious issues for appeal. Stiltner was informed of 

her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. 

We affirm.

 In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the 

district court erred in determining the amount of drugs 

attributable to Stiltner. We review a sentence for 

reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 

(2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th 

Cir. 2009). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for 

“significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate 

(or improperly calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the 

[g]uidelines 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, 128 S. Ct. at 597. This court 

then “‘consider[s] the substantive reasonableness of the 

2 
sentence imposed.’” United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 

(4th Cir.) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597), cert denied, 129 

S. Ct. 476 (2008) . “Substantive reasonableness review entails 

taking into account the ‘totality of the circumstances, 

including the extent of any variance from the [g]uidelines 

range.’” United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 

2007) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). If the sentence is 

within the guidelines range, we apply a presumption of 

reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 

S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of 

reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence). 

The district court’s determination of the drug amount 

involved is a factual issue reviewed for clear error. United 

States v. Lamarr, 75 F.3d 964, 972 (4th Cir. 1996). Under the 

clear error standard of review, this court will reverse only if 

“‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has 

been committed.’” United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 542 

(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 

564, 573 (1985)). At sentencing, the Government need only 

establish the amount of drugs involved by a preponderance of the 

evidence. United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 560 n.20, 562 

(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 519 (2008); United 

States v. Cook, 76 F.3d 596, 604 (4th Cir. 1996). 

3 
4 

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court did not clearly err in determining the amount of 

drugs attributable to Stiltner. We also find that the district 

court did not commit any procedural error in sentencing Stiltner 

and conclude that Stiltner’s within-guidelines sentence is 

substantively reasonable. 

 We have examined the entire record in accordance with 

the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues 

for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district 

court. This court requires that counsel inform Stiltner, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Stiltner 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 Stiltner. 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 the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED