UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4394

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRY LEE MASON,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cr-00150-WO-1)

Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 22, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Kathleen A. Gleason, Assistant 

Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. JoAnna Gibson McFadden, Assistant United

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4394 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Terry Lee Mason pled guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), and was sentenced to 97 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 the reasonableness 

of Mason’s sentence. Although advised of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, 

Mason has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails 

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 Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an 

opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If there are no 

procedural errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, 

evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. A sentence is presumptively 

substantively reasonable if it “is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range,” 

and this “presumption can only be rebutted 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). Here, a review of the record reveals that the district court 

did not commit any procedural sentencing errors, and Mason fails to rebut the presumption 

that his sentence is substantively reasonable.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4394 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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 Mason, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Mason 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 Mason. 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: 21-4394 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 3