UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4588

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARVIN RAY WILBURN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00337-RJC-11)

Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 9, 2015

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Denzil H. Forrester, DENZIL H. FORRESTER, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United

States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Ray Wilburn pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea 

agreement, to conspiracy to commit money laundering, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2012). Based on a total 

offense level of 27, and a Criminal History category of VI, 

Wilburn’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 130 to 162 

months’ imprisonment. The district court imposed a 130-month 

sentence. Wilburn noted a timely appeal. 

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

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

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the 

district court adequately considered injuries that Wilburn 

sustained in a robbery some years prior to the offense. Wilburn 

has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising two additional 

issues: (1) whether the factual basis was sufficient to support 

his conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering; and 

(2) whether his conviction is invalid because he did not sign 

the stipulated factual basis. 

Counsel questions whether Wilburn’s sentence is 

unreasonable because the district court did not adequately 

consider the fact that Wilburn had been shot five times during a 

robbery that took place in 2000. This court reviews Wilburn’s

sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 
3

51 (2007). This review entails appellate consideration of both 

the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. 

Id. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, this court 

considers whether the district court properly calculated the 

defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, gave the parties an 

opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence based on 

clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explained the selected 

sentence. Id. at 49-51. 

If the sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” 

this court reviews it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] 

into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. 

Any sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines 

range is presumptively substantively reasonable. United States 

v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. 

Ct. 421 (2014); United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289-90 (4th 

Cir. 2012). 

We find that the sentence imposed by the district court was 

both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district 

court properly calculated Wilburn’s sentencing range under the 

advisory Guidelines, considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors, 

and imposed a sentence within the applicable sentencing range. 

The court was fully aware that Wilburn had been shot in a 

robbery in 2000, remarking that it was “shocked that after 
4

surviving five bullets . . . you would go back into the money 

laundering business.” Wilburn did not seek a downward departure 

based on this factor, nor was he entitled to one. See USSG §

5H1.4 (providing that physical condition “may be relevant in 

determining whether a departure is warranted, if the condition . 

. . is present to an unusual degree and distinguishes the case 

from the typical cases covered by the guidelines.”). According 

to the presentence report, Wilburn is in good physical health 

and is not under the care of a physician nor prescribed any 

medication. Because Wilburn cannot overcome the presumption of 

reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence, we find 

that his 130-month sentence is substantively reasonable. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record, as well as the issues raised in Wilburn’s pro se 

supplemental brief, and have found no potentially meritorious 

grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm Wilburn’s conviction 

and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Wilburn, 

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

United States for further review. If Wilburn requests that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 

would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to 

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that 

a copy thereof was served on Wilburn. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
5

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED