UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4558

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENTRAL DONVRUS CHESTNUT, a/k/a Trell,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:12-cr-00576-TLW-5)

Submitted: May 28, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tristan M. Shaffer, TRISTAN SHAFFER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Chapin, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kentral Donvrus Chestnut appeals his 192-month 

sentence imposed after he pled guilty pursuant to a plea 

agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and 

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). Counsel 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), asserting that Chestnut’s sentence is procedurally 

unreasonable because the district court erred in finding that 

Chestnut’s family responsibilities and the abuse he endured as a 

child were not bases for a downward variance. The Government 

has declined to file a responsive brief and Chestnut has not 

filed a pro se supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of 

his right to do so. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review sentences for reasonableness “under a 

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

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We must evaluate both the 

procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id.

at 51. In evaluating 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) factors, 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, 
3

“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id.

at 51.

When rendering a sentence, the district court must 

“make an individualized assessment based on the facts 

presented.” Id. at 50. After choosing a sentence, the court 

must “adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for 

meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of 

fair sentencing.” Id.

The district court in this case granted the 

Government’s motion for a downward departure based on Chestnut’s 

substantial assistance, resulting in a significant reduction in 

Chestnut’s Guidelines range. At sentencing, Chestnut argued 

that he warranted an additional downward variance below this

reduced Guidelines range on the basis of his significant family 

responsibilities and the abuse he endured as a child. The 

district court listened to these arguments for a downward 

variance, but nonetheless found that Chestnut “engaged in very 

serious conduct” and was a significant drug dealer with a 

substantial criminal history. The court further reasoned that

the crime to which Chestnut pled guilty was serious, that he 

failed to show respect for the law in the past, and there was a 

need to deter him from committing future crimes. Balancing 

these factors against Chestnut’s arguments for a variance, the 
4

district court concluded that Chestnut provided no reason to 

vary from the already significantly reduced Guidelines range.

We conclude that the district court adequately 

explained the sentence and its reasons for rejecting counsel’s 

argument for a downward variance. Moreover, the reasons given 

by the district court fully justified the sentence imposed. Cf.

United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 474-75 (4th Cir. 2007) 

(affirming defendant’s downward variance sentence where district 

court explained the sentence by referring to the § 3553(a)

factors).

We have examined the entire record in accordance with 

our obligations under Anders and have found no other meritorious 

issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment.

We ask counsel to inform Chestnut, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Chestnut 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 Chestnut. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
5

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED