UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4647

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TONY LAMONT ROCHELLE, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

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

District Judge. (1:16-cr-00146-CCE-1)

Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 3, 2017

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Ira Knight, Assistant 

Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Tony Lamont Rochelle, Jr., pled guilty to carjacking, 18 

U.S.C. § 2119 (2012), and brandishing a firearm during a crime 

of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012). He appeals 

his resulting 130-month sentence. On appeal, Rochelle’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 imposed an 

unreasonable sentence by denying a downward variance. Rochelle

was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief 

but has not done so. The Government has declined to file a 

response brief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We review Rochelle’s sentence for reasonableness, applying 

“a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). We first ensure that the court 

“committed no significant procedural error,” such as improper 

calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines, insufficient 

consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and 

inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed. United States 

v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). If we find the sentence procedurally 

reasonable, we also review its substantive reasonableness under 

“the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We 

presume that a within-Guidelines sentence is substantively 
3

reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th 

Cir. 2014). Rochelle bears the burden to rebut this presumption 

“by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured 

against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.

Our review of the record indicates that Rochelle’s sentence 

is reasonable. The court properly calculated the applicable 

Sentencing Guidelines range, considered the parties’ sentencing 

arguments, and provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence 

it imposed, expressly grounded in various § 3553(a) factors. 

The court specifically considered Rochelle’s request for a 

downward variance, but reasonably declined to sentence him below 

the Guidelines range, concluding that such a reduction was 

unwarranted based on the seriousness of the offense, the benefit 

Rochelle received from the plea bargaining process, his 

significant criminal record at a very young age, and a 

substantial need to protect the public. Rochelle fails to rebut 

the presumption of substantive reasonableness accorded his 

within-Guidelines sentence. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

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 Rochelle, in writing, of 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Rochelle requests that a petition be filed, 
4

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 Rochelle. 

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