UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4318

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY REID,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(2:14-cr-00212-DCN-2)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alicia Vachira Penn, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Reid pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea 

agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

and to distribute a kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The district court sentenced Reid as a 

career offender to 188 months’ imprisonment. He appeals. 

Reid’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no 

meritorious grounds for appeal, but generally questioning the 

reasonableness of the sentence. Reid has filed a pro se 

supplemental brief in which he challenges his designation as a 

career offender in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 

2551 (2015). We affirm.

We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential 

abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 41 (2007). Under this standard, a sentence is reviewed for 

both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. In 

determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the 

district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory 

Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to 

argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, and sufficiently explained the 

selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If a sentence is free of 

“significant procedural error,” then we review it for 
3

substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality 

of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “Any sentence that is within 

or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively 

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

Cir. 2014). 

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Reid’s

sentence is procedurally sound and he fails to overcome the 

presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines 

sentence. Moreover, Johnson has no application where, as here, 

the designation of career offender is based on prior felony drug 

convictions. We therefore conclude that Reid’s sentence is 

reasonable. 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 Reid, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Reid 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 Reid. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
4

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED