UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4109

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA HOOD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:15-cr-00092-IMK-MJA-1)

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tracy Weese, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda 

Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, 

West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Hood pled guilty to transportation of child 

pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(A)(a)(1), (b)(1) (2012). The 

district court sentenced him to 240 months’ imprisonment. Counsel 

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no meritorious 

issues for appeal, but questioning the validity of Hood’s guilty 

plea and the reasonableness of the sentence. Hood has filed a pro 

se supplemental brief, addressing these same issues. We affirm.

We have reviewed the plea agreement and the Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11 hearing, and we conclude that Hood’s guilty plea were knowing 

and voluntary. Accordingly, we affirm Hood’s conviction.

We review Hood’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We must first determine whether the 

district court committed significant procedural error, such as 

incorrect calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines range, 

inadequate consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, 

or insufficient explanation of the sentence imposed. United States 

v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 170 (4th Cir. 2014). If we find no 

procedural error, we also examine the substantive reasonableness 

of the sentence under “the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 

552 U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not 

greater than necessary,” to satisfy the goals of sentencing. See
3

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We presume on appeal that a within-Guidelines 

sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 

756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). Hood bears the burden to rebut 

this presumption “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable 

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

Our review of the record reveals that Hood’s sentence is 

reasonable.* The district court properly calculated Hood’s 

Guidelines range as 240 months, heard arguments from both parties, 

considered the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 

explained its rationale for the sentence it imposed.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record 

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

therefore affirm Hood’s conviction and sentence. We deny without 

prejudice counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court requires that 

counsel inform Hood, in writing, of his right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hood 

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such 

a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court 

 * Although the two-level increase to Hood’s offense level 

pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G2.1 (2015), was 

erroneously applied, we find this error harmless. See United 

States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 283 (4th Cir. 2010) (sentencing 

error is harmless if resulting sentence is no longer than sentence 

to which defendant would otherwise be subject). Hood’s properly 

calculated advisory Guidelines range without this increase exceeds 

the statutory maximum sentence for this offense; thus, Hood’s 

Guidelines range of 240 months is unchanged.
4

for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on Hood. 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