UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4026

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ISAAC LEE SMATHERS, JR.,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Thomas D. Schroeder,

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00327-TDS-1)

Submitted: August 31, 2011 Decided: September 13, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin D. Porter, MORROW ALEXANDER PORTER & VERMITSKY, PLLC, 

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. 

DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Isaac Lee Smathers, Jr., appeals the 200-month 

sentence imposed by the district court on remand following his 

guilty plea to sexual exploitation of minors, in violation of 18 

U.S.C.A. § 2251(a) (West Supp. 2011). Smathers’s counsel filed 

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

asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but 

questioning whether the district court’s downward variant 

sentence was reasonable. Smathers was advised of his right to 

file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file one. Finding 

no error, we affirm. 

The sole issue raised by counsel is whether Smathers’s 

sentence is reasonable. In reviewing a sentence, we must first 

ensure that the district court did not commit any “significant 

procedural error,” such as failing to properly calculate the 

applicable Guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a) 

factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Because Smathers 

preserved his claim of error below, we review for reasonableness 

under an abuse of discretion standard, reversing “unless . . . 

the error was harmless.” United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 

576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010); see Gall, 552 U.S. at 46. Our review 

of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did 

not commit procedural error in imposing Smathers’s sentence. 
3

We next consider the substantive reasonableness of the 

sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the 

circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We may not presume an 

outside-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable; we “may consider 

the extent of the deviation, but must give due deference to the 

district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a 

whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id. Our review 

leads us to conclude that the district court committed no 

substantive error in imposing the sentence. 

In accordance with Anders

AFFIRMED

, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Smathers, in writing, of his right 

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Smathers 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 Smathers. We therefore deny counsel’s motion to

withdraw at this time. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.