UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-4581

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

ANTHONY LAMONTE PACE, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00401-JAB-2) 

Submitted: December 4, 2009 Decided: December 16, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. 

Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States 

Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Anthony Lamonte Pace pled guilty, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to one count of distribution of cocaine 

hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) 

(2006), and to one count of possession of a firearm by a 

convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 

924(a)(2) (2006). Following a jury trial, Pace was convicted 

of one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug 

trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) 

(2006); he was sentenced to a total of 128 months’ imprisonment. 

Pace appeals his sentence, alleging that it is substantively 

unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to further the 

goals of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors. We 

affirm. 

 This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, 

applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). This review requires 

appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of a sentence. Id. Because Pace challenges only 

the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, we need not 

consider whether his sentence is procedurally reasonable. See

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 

1999) (holding that a party who fails to assert claims in the 

2 
3 

argument section of its opening brief is deemed to have 

abandoned those claims). 

 This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of 

the sentence, “taking into account the ‘totality of the 

circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the 

[g]uidelines range.’” United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 

473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). This court 

accords a sentence within the properly calculated guidelines 

range an appellate presumption of reasonableness. United 

States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. 

denied, 129 S. Ct. 1312 (2009). We have thoroughly reviewed the 

record and find that Pace has failed to rebut that presumption. 

See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 

2006) (stating presumption may be rebutted by showing sentence 

is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors). 

We thus find the sentence reasonable. 

 We affirm the judgment of the district court. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED