UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4277

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES MATTHEW GREER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

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

District Judge. (1:15-cr-00405-CCE-2)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS AND TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Kimberly Furr Davis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Matthew Greer and a co-defendant robbed a Walgreens 

pharmacy of controlled substances. Greer pled guilty to 

interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 1951 & 2 (2015). The district court sentenced him to 102

months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in 

counsel’s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but 

questioning the propriety of the sentencing enhancements for 

brandishing a firearm and for physically restraining a person 

during the offense. Greer has filed a pro se supplemental brief, 

asserting these same issues. We affirm.

We review Greer’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We must first determine whether the 

district court committed significant procedural error, such as 

incorrect calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines range, 

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

or insufficient explanation of the sentence imposed. United 

States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 170 (4th Cir. 2014). If we find 

no procedural error, we also examine the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence under “the totality of the 

circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed must 

be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the 
3

goals of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We presume on 

appeal that a within-Guidelines sentence is substantively 

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

Cir. 2014). Greer 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 reveals that Greer’s sentence is 

reasonable. The district court properly determined Greer’s 

offense level, including the two challenged enhancements. During 

the commission of the robbery, Greer’s co-defendant brandished a 

firearm. This qualifies Greer for the enhancement, which provides 

for a five-level enhancement “if a firearm was brandished or 

possessed.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) 

§ 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) (2015).

A two-level enhancement is imposed “if any person was 

physically restrained to facilitate commission of the offense.” 

USSG § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B). This enhancement was properly applied

based on the fact that the night manager of the store was ordered 

to lay face-down on the ground and Greer stood over him and did 

not allow him to get up while Greer’s co-defendant directed the 

pharmacist to place the narcotics inside a plastic bag. 

The court correctly calculated Greer’s Guidelines range as 

100-125 months, heard arguments from both parties, considered the 

sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and explained its 
4

rationale for the sentence it imposed. We conclude that the court 

adequately explained its reasons for the sentence imposed and that 

the 102-month sentence is not unreasonable and not an abuse of 

discretion. See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th 

Cir. 2007) (applying an appellate presumption of reasonableness to 

a sentence imposed within a properly calculated advisory 

Guidelines range); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 

346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for withinGuidelines 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 Greer’s conviction and sentence. This court 

requires that counsel inform Greer, in writing, of his right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. 

If Greer requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 

that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move 

this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s 

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Greer. 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