UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-4151

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA RANSOME,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cr-00233-ELH-1)

Submitted: July 23, 2020 Decided: July 28, 2020

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julie Marie Reamy, JULIE M. REAMY, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Matthew DellaBetta, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Ransome pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute heroin, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (2018). The district court sentenced Ransome to 45 

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 Ransome’s sentence is reasonable. Although notified of his right 

to do so, Ransome 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)

(2018) 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 

guidelines 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 

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

357-58 (internal quotation marks omitted).
3

We conclude that Ransome’s sentence is reasonable. The district court correctly 

calculated Ransome’s advisory Guidelines range. While Ransome argued for a 37-month 

sentence based on his difficult upbringing, his role as a street-level drug dealer, and the 

steps he took on pretrial release to treat his opiate addiction, the district court found a 

lengthier sentence was necessary in light of the serious nature of the offense, Ransome’s 

extensive criminal history, and the fact that prior sentences had not deterred him from 

engaging in the instant offense. However, the court credited Ransome’s arguments in 

varying below the Guidelines, albeit less than he requested. Thus, the district court 

adequately explained the chosen sentence. We further conclude that Ransome cannot 

overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded his below-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 Ransome, in writing, of the right to petition the 

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

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