UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4123

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

PRESTON POTTS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cr-00052-RJC-1)

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert C. Carpenter, ADAMS, HENDON, CARSON, CROW AND SAENGER, 

P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth 

Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Preston Potts pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute oxycodone, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012). Potts was 

sentenced to 121 months’ imprisonment. His counsel filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but 

raising for the court’s consideration whether the district court 

made a procedural error in applying a sentencing enhancement for

Potts’ role in the offense. Potts did not file a pro se 

supplemental brief. The Government did not file a brief. After 

a careful review of the record, we affirm.

We review a sentence’s procedural and substantive 

reasonableness for an abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 527-28 (4th Cir. 2014). We first review 

for procedural errors such as improper calculation of the 

Sentencing Guidelines range, failure to consider the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors, selection of a sentence 

based on clearly erroneous facts, or failure to adequately 

explain the sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). Absent any procedural error, we examine the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence under “the totality of the 

circumstances.” Id. Sentences within or below a properly 

calculated Guidelines range are presumed substantively 
3

reasonable, 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). We review a 

within-Guidelines sentence for abuse of discretion. See United 

States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576-77 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating 

standard of review).

We conclude that the district court did not err in applying 

the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(a) (2014)

enhancement. Further, we conclude that the district court’s 

within-Guidelines sentence is both procedurally and 

substantively reasonable and not an abuse of discretion.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm Potts’ conviction and sentence. 

This court requires that counsel inform Potts, in writing, of 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Potts 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 Potts. 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