UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4410

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC J. NIXON,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:20-cr-00685-CMC-1)

Submitted: July 16, 2024 Decided: July 31, 2024

Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Miller W. Shealy, Jr., MILLER SHEALY LAW FIRM, Charleston, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4410 Doc: 47 Filed: 07/31/2024 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM: 

A federal jury convicted Eric J. Nixon of possessing of a firearm as a convicted

felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2018),1 and possession of cocaine 

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 844, 851. The district court sentenced Nixon to 120 

months’ imprisonment, followed by three years’ supervised release. On appeal, Nixon’s 

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

that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the procedural 

reasonableness of Nixon’s sentence. Nixon was notified of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief but has not done so, and the Government has declined to file a response 

brief. We affirm.2

We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the 

[advisory Sentencing] Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). “First, we ensure that the district court committed no significant 

procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines 

1 Section 924(a)(2) was amended and no longer provides the penalty for § 922(g) 

convictions. See Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, Pub. L. No. 117-159, § 12004(c), 136 

Stat. 1313, 1329 (2022). The new 15-year statutory maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(a)(8) does not apply in this case, however, because Nixon’s offense occurred before 

the June 25, 2022, amendment to the statute.

2 For reasons appearing to the court, we placed this appeal in abeyance for United 

States v. Canada, 103 F.4th 257, 258-59 (4th Cir. 2024) (holding § 922(g)(1) does not 

facially violate the Second Amendment). In light of that decision, we discern no error in 

Nixon’s § 922(g)(1) conviction.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4410 Doc: 47 Filed: 07/31/2024 Pg: 2 of 4
3

range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) 

factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately 

explain the chosen sentence.” United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). If the sentence is procedurally sound, we then review 

the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances 

to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it 

chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. Abed, 3 F.4th 104, 

119 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A]ny sentence that is within or 

below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States 

v. Gillespie, 27 F.4th 934, 945 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). A 

defendant can rebut this presumption only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable 

when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 

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

Our review of the record confirms that Nixon’s sentence is procedurally and 

substantively reasonable. We discern no reversible error in the district court’s resolution 

of Nixon’s objections to the presentence report, and we conclude that the district court 

correctly calculated Nixon’s advisory Guidelines range. Although Nixon requested a 

sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range, the district court rejected Nixon’s 

mitigation arguments and determined that a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines 

range was appropriate. The district court particularly emphasized the circumstances of the 

offenses, Nixon’s lengthy criminal history, and the need for the sentence imposed to reflect 

the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4410 Doc: 47 Filed: 07/31/2024 Pg: 3 of 4
4

adequate deterrence, protect the public, and provide correctional treatment. The district 

court adequately explained the chosen sentence, and Nixon has not overcome the 

presumption of reasonableness accorded to his within-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 Nixon, in writing, of the right to petition the 

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

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

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4410 Doc: 47 Filed: 07/31/2024 Pg: 4 of 4