UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4911

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOHN SAADIQ HASAN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(4:14-cr-00294-MGL-1)

Submitted: June 16, 2015 Decided: June 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, 

for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

John Saadiq Hasan was convicted of threatening a government 

official, 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B) (2012), and was sentenced to 

41 months in prison. Hasan now appeals. His attorney has filed 

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

raising two issues but stating that there are no meritorious 

issues for appeal. Hasan was advised of his right to file a pro 

se supplemental brief, but has not filed such a brief. We 

affirm.

Counsel first contends that the district court when it 

denied Hasan’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for judgment of 

acquittal. We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 29 

motion de novo. United States v. Reed, 780 F.3d 260, 269 (4th 

Cir. 2015). “Applying that standard, . . . the verdict . . . 

must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the 

view most favorable to the government, to support it.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the trial 

transcript and conclude that there was ample evidence to support 

the guilty verdict. Two witnesses testified that they heard 

Hasan threaten to kill an employee at a social security office 

unless Hasan’s supplemental security income benefit was fully 

reinstated. Further, Hasan made one of the threats when he was 

outside the social security office, armed with a pitchfork. 

2
We next review Hasan’s sentence. His properly calculated 

Guidelines range was 33-41 months. After considering the 

Guidelines range, the arguments of counsel, Hasan’s allocution, 

and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors as they 

applied to Hasan, the district court sentenced him to 41 months 

in prison. 

We review the sentence for procedural and substantive 

reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We 

must first “ensure that the district court committed no 

significant procedural error.” Id. at 51. If there is no such 

error, we then consider the sentence’s substantive 

reasonableness, taking into consideration “the totality of the 

circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the 

Guidelines range.” Id. We may presume that a sentence within a 

properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United 

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 

135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). A defendant may rebut this presumption 

only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured 

against the § 3553(a) factors.” Id. After reviewing the 

presentence investigation report and the sentencing transcript, 

we conclude that the sentence is procedurally and substantively 

reasonable and that Hasan did not rebut the presumption of 

reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines sentence.

3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for 

appeal. We therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel 

inform Hasan, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme 

Court of the United States for further review. If Hasan 

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 of the motion was served on Hasan. 

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

4