UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4842

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY ABEL WALKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00125-NCT-1)

Submitted: June 16, 2020 Decided: June 18, 2020

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Kathleen A. Gleason, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Abel Walker pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2018), and counterfeiting and forging obligations or securities 

of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471 (2018). The district court sentenced 

him to concurrent 33-month terms of imprisonment, the high end of the advisory 

Sentencing Guidelines range. Walker appealed. Walker’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 imposed a substantively 

unreasonable sentence by failing to impose a lower term of imprisonment. Walker was 

advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not file one. The 

Government has declined to file a response brief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

We review Walker’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We first ensure that 

the court “committed no significant procedural error,” such as improperly calculating the 

Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2018) factors, or 

inadequately explaining the sentence. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 

2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, 

we also review its substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances.” 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We presume that a within-Guidelines sentence is substantively 

reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). Walker 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. 
3

Our review of the record convinces us that Walker’s sentence is reasonable. The 

court properly calculated the applicable advisory Guidelines range, considered the parties’ 

sentencing arguments, and provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence it imposed, 

grounded in § 3553(a) factors. Walker fails to rebut the presumption of substantive 

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. 

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

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