UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4444

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

THEOHARIS TOUMAZATOS, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00390-D-1) 

Submitted: October 8, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael B. Driver, DRIVER LAW FIRM, PA, Durham, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Federal inmate Theoharis Toumazatos pled guilty to 

possession of a prohibited object, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 

§ 1791(a)(2) (West 2006 & Supp. 2013). The district court 

calculated Toumazatos’ Guidelines range under the 

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2012) at zero to six months’ 

imprisonment and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment. 

On appeal, 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 abused its discretion in imposing sentence. 

Toumazatos was informed of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government 

declined to file a brief. We affirm. 

We review Toumazatos’ sentence for reasonableness 

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

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007). This review entails 

appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In determining 

procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district 

court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines 

range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an 

appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) 

factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, 
3

and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49–51. 

If the sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” we 

review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account 

the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. If the sentence 

is within the properly calculated Guidelines range, we apply a 

presumption on appeal that the sentence is substantively 

reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 

(4th Cir. 2010). Such a presumption is rebutted only if the 

defendant shows “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured 

against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 

445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

In this case, the district court correctly calculated 

and considered the advisory Guidelines range, heard argument 

from counsel, and afforded Toumazatos the opportunity to 

allocute. The court explained that the within-Guideline 

sentence of three months’ imprisonment was warranted in light of

the nature and circumstances of Toumazatos’ offense, his history 

and characteristics, and the need for the sentence to reflect 

the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, 

and to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. Neither 

counsel nor Toumazatos offers any grounds to rebut the 

presumption on appeal that his within-Guidelines sentence is

substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we conclude that the 
4

district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing 

Toumazatos. 

Finally, 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 Toumazatos, 

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

United States for further review. If Toumazatos 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 Toumazatos. 

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