UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4629

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARRELL ALAN PELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cr-00023-WO-9)

Submitted: February 18, 2020 Decided: February 20, 2020

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darrell Alan Pell pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to 

distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(C), 846 (2018). 

Pell’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating 

that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Pell’s 50-month 

sentence was reasonable. We affirm. 

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails 

appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the 

sentence. Id. at 51. In assessing procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the 

district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, 

gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2018) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 

49-51. “Under the law of this circuit a district court must address or consider all nonfrivolous reasons presented for imposing a different sentence and explain why he has 

rejected those arguments.” United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 744 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 

140 S. Ct. 206 (2019). 

If there are no procedural errors, then we consider the substantive reasonableness of 

the sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. A 

sentence is presumptively reasonable if it is within or below the defendant’s Guidelines 

range, and this “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is 
3

unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. 

Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

The district court properly calculated Pell’s Guidelines range as 57 to 71 months 

and granted in part Pell’s motion for a downward variance, appropriately addressing the 

parties’ arguments and explaining, in light of the § 3553(a) factors, the court’s conclusion 

that a sentence of 50 months, rather than 24 to 36 months as requested by Pell, was the 

proper sentence. Moreover, nothing in the record rebuts the presumption of reasonableness 

attached to Pell’s below-Guidelines sentence. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have 

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Pell, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme 

Court of the United States for further review. If Pell 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 Pell.

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