UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4939

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TROUN VANRECKUS BROCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (1:13-cr-00036-JPJ-PMS-3)

Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: April 6, 2016

Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne D. Inge, LAW OFFICE OF WAYNE D. INGE, Roanoke, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States

Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Troun Vanreckus Brock appeals the district court’s judgment 

imposing a 151-month sentence following his conviction for 

conspiracy to distribute Schedule II controlled substances, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C) (2012). 

Brock’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the 

district court erroneously denied Brock’s motion for judgment of 

acquittal based on sufficiency of the evidence and whether 

Brock’s sentence was reasonable. Brock has been notified of his 

right to file a pro se brief, but he has not filed one. We 

affirm.

First, we find no error in the district court’s denial of 

Brock’s motion for judgment of acquittal. “A defendant 

challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy 

burden.” United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 

2007). “A jury’s verdict must be upheld on appeal if there is 

substantial evidence in the record to support it.” Id. at 244. 

Evidence is “substantial” if, viewed in the light most favorable 

to the government, “there is evidence that a reasonable finder 

of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a 

conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Id. at 245. Because the record before us contains ample 
3

evidence of Brock’s guilt, we conclude that the district court 

did not err in denying his motion.

We next turn to Brock’s sentence, which we review for both 

procedural and substantive reasonableness “under a deferential 

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

38, 41 (2007). We must ensure that the district court committed 

no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating 

the Sentencing Guidelines range. Id. at 51. If there is no 

significant procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s 

substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the 

circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the 

Guidelines range.” Id. We presume that a sentence within a 

properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United 

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 

135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). A defendant can rebut this presumption 

only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured 

against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.

After reviewing the presentence report and sentencing 

transcript, we conclude that Brock’s sentence is both 

procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court 

properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, discussed the 

applicable § 3553(a) factors, and thoroughly explained its 

reasons for imposing the sentence Brock received. In addition, 

Brock has not made the showing necessary to rebut the 
4

presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines 

sentence. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

deny Brock’s motion for copy of electronically recorded 

transcript. This court requires that counsel inform Brock, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Brock 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 Brock.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED