UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5058

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY NORMAN SUTPHIN,

 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. (1:09-cr-00129-JAB-1)

Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Carlyle Sherrill, III, SHERRILL & CAMERON, PLLC, Salisbury, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Norman Sutphin appeals from his conviction and 

235-month sentence, entered pursuant to his guilty plea to 

conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. On appeal, Sutphin’s 

attorney has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

brief, contending that there are no meritorious issues on 

appeal, but nevertheless arguing that the sentence imposed was 

procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to 

consider the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553 (West 2000 & Supp. 2011) factors 

when imposing sentence. Neither the Government nor Sutphin

filed a brief. We affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an 

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

38, 51 (2007); United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In determining the 

procedural reasonableness of a sentence, we consider whether the 

district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory 

Guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any 

arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained 

the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

“Regardless of whether the district court imposes an 

above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on 

the record an individualized assessment based on the particular 

facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 
3

325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In 

evaluating the district court’s explanation of a selected 

sentence, we have held that the district court “need not 

robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection,” but need 

only “provide [this court] an assurance that the sentencing 

court considered the § 3553(a) factors with regard to the 

particular defendant.” United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 

657 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). On appellate review, we will not evaluate the 

adequacy of the sentencing court’s explanation for its sentence 

“in a vacuum,” but rather will consider “[t]he context 

surrounding [its] explanation.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 

445 F.3d 375, 381 (4th Cir. 2006).

Sutphin stated no objection to the presentence report 

(“PSR”) or to the advisory Guidelines range calculation within 

which he was sentenced. At sentencing, defense counsel sought a 

sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range (235-293 

months), but did not explicitly reference any specific § 3553(a) 

factors. Thus, our review is for plain error. United States v. 

Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 579-80 (4th Cir. 2010). 

We find that Sutphin fails to demonstrate that the 

district court’s explanation supporting its chosen sentence was 

insufficient. Sutphin made no objections to the findings and 

calculations in the PSR, which the court explicitly adopted. 
4

The court heard and considered counsel’s argument advancing 

Sutphin’s personal circumstances and requesting a sentence at 

the low end of the Guidelines range. The court then heard from 

Sutphin himself. The court stated that it considered the 

advisory Guidelines range to be appropriate, provided reasons 

for the chosen sentence,*

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire 

record in this case for meritorious issues and found none. 

Accordingly, we affirm Sutphin’s conviction and sentence. This 

court requires that counsel inform Sutphin in writing of his 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Sutphin requests that a petition be filed, 

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 

then counsel may motion this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Sutphin. We dispense with oral argument because 

and imposed the sentence requested by 

Sutphin. Accordingly, despite the rather abbreviated nature of 

the sentencing hearing and the district court’s failure to 

explicitly reference § 3553, we conclude that there was no plain 

error in the district court’s imposition of sentence. 

 * Indeed, the district court’s reasons were appropriate 

factors for consideration under § 3553. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553 

(listing inter alia “history and characteristics of the 

defendant”).
5

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED