UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4191

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

REGINALD ANDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, 

District Judge. (5:13-cr-00012-1)

Submitted: September 16, 2014 Decided: October 1, 2014

Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Steven Hunter, STEVE HUNTER & ASSOCIATES, L.C., Lewisburg, 

West Virginia, for Appellant. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

 Reginald Anderson pled guilty, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). The district court 

calculated Anderson’s advisory Guidelines range as ten to 

sixteen months, imposed an upward variance, and sentenced 

Anderson to twenty-four months’ imprisonment. He appeals. 

Anderson’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts that 

there are no meritorious issues for appeal but challenges 

Anderson’s sentence. Although advised of his right to file a 

supplemental pro se brief, Anderson has not done so. Finding no 

error, we affirm. 

 We review the district court’s sentence, “whether 

inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines 

range[,] . . . under a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

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

standard of review involves two steps; under the first, we 

examine the sentence for significant procedural errors, and 

under the second, we review the substance of the sentence. 

United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) 

(analyzing Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51). Significant procedural 

errors include “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) 

the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, 
3

failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, 

selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or 

failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence — including an 

explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 

552 U.S. at 51. If there are no significant procedural errors, 

we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, 

tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id.

When the district court imposes a variant sentence, we 

consider “whether the . . . court acted reasonably both with 

respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with 

respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing 

range.” United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 

123 (4th Cir. 2007). Such a sentence is unreasonable if the 

district court “provided an inadequate statement of reasons or 

relie[d] on improper factors in imposing a sentence outside the 

properly calculated advisory sentencing range.” Id.

After hearing argument from counsel and giving 

Anderson the opportunity for allocution, the district court 

concluded that an upward variance under § 3553(a) to twenty-four 

months’ imprisonment was necessary to comply with the purposes 

of sentencing. In reaching this conclusion, the court properly 

considered Anderson’s history and characteristics, his 

underrepresented criminal history, the fact that he was a repeat 
4

offender, and the need for the sentence to afford adequate 

deterrence.

The district court’s consideration of relevant 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and articulation of the reasons 

warranting an upward variance from the Guidelines range support 

our decision to defer to the district court’s determination as 

to the extent of the variance. United States v. Diosdado-Star, 

630 F.3d 359, 366-67 (4th Cir. 2011) (affirming substantive 

reasonableness of variance sentence six years greater than 

Guidelines range because sentence was based on the district 

court’s examination of relevant § 3553(a) factors). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

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

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

motion to withdraw from representation, as set forth in his 

brief, is denied. This Court requires that counsel inform 

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

of the United States for further review. If Anderson 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 Anderson. Finally, 

we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
5

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED