UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4170

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHI BIN DONG,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:11-cr-00085-CCE-3)

Submitted: November 29, 2012 Decided: December 11, 2012

Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles L. White, Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Frank Joseph Chut, Jr., Assistant United States

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shi Bin Dong appeals from his convictions and 46-month 

sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to 

commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft. 

Dong’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the 

district court erred in imposing sentence. Neither Dong nor the 

Government has filed a brief. We affirm.

Dong’s sentence is reviewed for reasonableness, 

applying the abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires 

consideration of both the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence. Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592 

F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). After determining whether the 

district court correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines 

range, we must decide whether the court considered the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed the arguments presented by 

the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. 

Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575-76; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 

330 (4th Cir. 2009). If the sentence is free of significant 

procedural error, we review the substantive reasonableness of 

the sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575.
3

Our review of the record shows that the district court 

correctly calculated Dong’s Guidelines range, without objection; 

analyzed the arguments presented by both sides; and sufficiently 

explained the selected sentence. The court granted the 

Government’s request for a downward departure under United 

States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (2011) based on 

Dong’s substantial assistance and gave sufficient reasoning for 

the departure. To the extent Dong argues that the district 

court erred in selecting the extent of its departure, this 

decision is unreviewable on appeal. See United States v. Hill, 

70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that extent of 

departure is only reviewable if it resulted in a sentence 

imposed in violation of law or resulted from an incorrect 

application of the Guidelines). Based on the foregoing, we 

conclude that the sentence is procedurally reasonable. 

Turning to the substantive reasonableness of Dong’s 

sentence, we presume that a sentence within a properlycalculated Guidelines range is reasonable. Rita v. United 

States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007). Dong’s sentence was below the 

bottom of the applicable Guidelines range and only five months 

longer than the sentence requested by Dong. Dong has failed to 

overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded his sentence 

because he has not identified any sentencing factor that would 

warrant a different outcome. See United States v. Susi, 674 
4

F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding that a below-Guidelines 

sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record for reversible error and have found none. Thus, we 

affirm Dong’s convictions and sentence. This court requires 

that counsel inform Dong in writing of his right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Dong

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that 

such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this 

court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's 

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Dong. 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