Court Opinion

ID: 9364997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:30.301729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.159152
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4411      Doc: 19         Filed: 01/19/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4411

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DEANDRE ANTONIO BOYD,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:21-cr-00384-CCE-1)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 19, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, First Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
        Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4411      Doc: 19         Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Deandre Antonio Boyd pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon,

        in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The district court imposed a sentence of

        96 months’ imprisonment, which fell within the Sentencing Guidelines range established

        at sentencing. On appeal, Boyd’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

        386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but

        questioning the substantive reasonableness of Boyd’s sentence. Although advised of his

        right to do so, Boyd has not filed a supplemental pro se brief. We affirm.

               We review the sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness “under a

        deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).

        In doing so, we first examine the sentence for “significant procedural error,” which

        includes “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the

        Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a

        sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen

        sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Id. at

        51; see United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). If there is no

        significant procedural error, we then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,

        “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. A sentence

        is presumptively substantively reasonable if it “is within or below a properly calculated

        Guidelines range,” and this “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence

        is unreasonable when measured against 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v.

        Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4411         Doc: 19      Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

              The district court correctly calculated Boyd’s Guidelines range, considered the

        § 3553(a) factors, and adequately explained its reasons for imposing a 96-month sentence.

        Based on the factors identified by the district court, we conclude that Boyd has failed to

        rebut the presumption of reasonableness.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

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

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

               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

                                                    3