Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emanual SHORTEN, a/k/a Terez, a/k/a T-Man, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-14
Citations: 657 F. App'x 175
Docket Number: No. 15-4806
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emanual SHORTEN, a/k/a Terez, a/k/a T-Man, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 657
Pages: 175–176

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emanual SHORTEN, a/k/a Terez, a/k/a T-Man, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-4806
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 31, 2016
Decided: September 14, 2016
Louis H. Lang, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. James Hunter May, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Emanual Shorten appeals the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base and 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that he has found no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court should have granted a variance based on Shorten's family support and the sentencing disparity between cocaine base and powder cocaine. Shorten was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Shorten. See United States v. Martinovich, 810 F.3d 232, 242 (4th Cir. 2016) (stating standard of review). We discern no procedural sentencing error, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), and Shorten has failed to rebut the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable, see United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Shorten's conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Shorten, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Shorten 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 mo.tion must state that a copy thereof was served on Shorten. 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