UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4909

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DERRICK LAMONT WILSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:10-cr-00448-CCE-3)

Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN, 

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart 

Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Graham Tod Green, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Lamont Wilson appeals from his conviction and

171-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy 

to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base. Wilson’s 

counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

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

meritorious issues for appeal but raising whether Wilson’s 

sentence was substantively reasonable. We affirm.

Wilson’s Sentencing Guidelines range was 262 to 327 

months of imprisonment. Counsel argued for a downward variance 

to the statutory minimum of 240 months before applying a 

thirty-five percent reduction sought by the Government for 

substantial assistance. The court declined Wilson’s request for 

a variance sentence and instead placed him at the low-end of the 

Guidelines range.

This court reviews a sentence under a deferential 

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

38, 51 (2007). The substantive reasonableness of the sentence

is determined by “tak[ing] into account the totality of the 

circumstances.” Id. at 51. If the sentence imposed is within 

the appropriate Guidelines range, this court may consider it 

presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 

F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). The presumption may be rebutted 

by a showing “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured 
3

against the [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) [2006] factors.” United 

States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

Because the district court imposed a within-Guidelines 

sentence, it is deemed by this court to be presumptively 

reasonable. See Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d at 216. Wilson has 

not rebutted that presumption. Therefore, the district court 

committed no reversible substantive error in sentencing Wilson 

to 171 months’ imprisonment.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm Wilson’s conviction and sentence. This 

court requires that counsel inform Wilson, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Wilson 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 Wilson.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
4

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED