UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4032

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STANLEY CHOATE EAVES, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:20-cr-00341-FDW-DCK-1)

Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: September 26, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Thomas K. Maher, AMOS TYNDALL, PLLC, Carrboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4032 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Choate Eaves, Sr., pled guilty to wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1343. The district court sentenced Eaves to 37 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, 

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding 

that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the sentence is 

substantively reasonable. Although notified of his right to do so, Eaves has not filed a pro 

se supplemental brief. We affirm the district court’s judgment.

We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Under the Gall standard, a 

sentence is reviewed for both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. In 

determining procedural reasonableness,* we consider whether the district court properly 

calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an 

opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If a sentence is free 

of “significant procedural error,” then we review it for substantive reasonableness, 

“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. We “apply a 

presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within or below a properly calculated 

[G]uidelines range.” United States v. Vinson, 852 F.3d 333, 357 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). This “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the 

* Although counsel only questions the sentence’s substantive reasonableness, we are 

obliged to consider its procedural reasonableness first, notwithstanding the fact that this is 

an Anders appeal. See United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 215, 218 (4th Cir. 2019).

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4032 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

357-58 (internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that the sentence is reasonable. The district court correctly calculated 

the advisory Guidelines range, allowed Eaves the opportunity for allocution, and 

thoroughly explained the selected sentence, emphasizing its concern that Eaves attempted 

to renew his fraudulent scheme after pleading guilty and while he was on bond awaiting 

sentencing. We further conclude that Eaves cannot overcome the 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 review. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Eaves, in writing, of the right to petition the 

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

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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4032 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 3 of 3