UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-5192

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

VERNARD JEROME MATHIS, a/k/a Cuz, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief 

District Judge. (0:02-cr-01173-JFA-1) 

Submitted: July 29, 2009 Decided: August 12, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

John D. Elliot, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert 

Frank Daley, Jr., Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 Vernard Jerome Mathis appeals his sentence imposed 

after a remand. At trial, the jury was not instructed to make 

an individualized determination regarding drug quantity with 

respect to Mathis and his role in the drug conspiracy for which 

he was convicted. On appeal, his sentence was vacated and 

remanded to the district court for resentencing because the jury 

did not make any determination regarding drug quantity with 

respect to Mathis, nor did Mathis admit to being responsible for 

a particular drug quantity. The court ruled Mathis faced a 

twenty-year maximum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) 

(2006). While the court found no error with Mathis’ conviction, 

the court declined to rule on Mathis’ claim that the district 

court abused its discretion ordering the sentence run 

consecutive to the five life sentences Mathis was serving in 

state custody. See United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 555 

n.10, 560-61 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 519 (2008). 

 At resentencing, the district court found that because 

of the maximum statutory sentence, Mathis’ Sentencing Guidelines 

sentence was twenty-years’ imprisonment. After some discussion 

about whether the sentence should run concurrently, partially 

concurrent or consecutively to Mathis’ state-imposed life 

sentences, the court ordered Mathis to serve a twenty-year 

sentence to run consecutively to the state sentences. 

2 
 Mathis’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are 

no meritorious arguments for appeal, but raises for the court’s 

consideration, whether the district court erred imposing a 

consecutive sentence. Mathis was notified of the opportunity to 

file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so. The 

Government chose not to file a brief. 

 This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district 

court under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); 

United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). In 

reviewing a sentence, the appellate court must first ensure that 

the district court committed no procedural error, such as 

failing to calculate or improperly calculating the Guidelines 

range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider 

the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly 

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen 

sentence — including an explanation for any deviation from the 

Guidelines range. Gall, 552 U.S. at __, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If 

there are no procedural errors, the appellate court then 

considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. 

A substantive reasonableness review entails taking into account 

the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Pauley, 511 

F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quotations and citation omitted). 

3 
Further, this court may presume a sentence within the guidelines 

range to be reasonable. Id. 

 Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(c), in 

any case involving an undischarged term of imprisonment, “the 

sentence for the instant offense may be imposed to run 

concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to the 

prior undischarged term of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable 

punishment for the instant offense.” In reaching its decision, 

the court should consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the 

type and length of the undischarged sentences, the time served 

and the time likely to be served on the undischarged sentences, 

whether the undischarged sentence was imposed in state court or 

federal court and any other circumstances relevant to the 

determination. See USSG § 5C1.3 (cmt. n.3(A)). In addition, 

subsection (c) does not authorize a downward departure for the 

instant offense for a period of imprisonment already served on 

the undischarged term of imprisonment. See USSG § 5C1.3 (cmt. 

n.3(E)). 

 We find there was no abuse of discretion with respect 

to either the length of the sentence or that it will run 

consecutively to the state sentences. There was no error with 

the Guidelines calculations or the twenty-year statutory maximum 

sentence. The district court understood the Guidelines were 

advisory and that it was to consider the § 3553(a) sentencing 

4 
5 

factors. The court imposed a consecutive sentence because 

Mathis’ state convictions were unrelated to the drug conspiracy 

and were not used as relevant conduct within the Guidelines’ 

calculations. The court also noted that it agreed with all the 

Government’s arguments in favor of a consecutive sentence, 

including the claim that if the sentence was to run concurrent, 

he would have in essence received no prison time for the drug 

conviction. 

 Because we find no abuse of discretion in the twentyyear sentence, we affirm the district court’s amended judgment. 

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