Court Opinion

ID: 9384144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 21:01:15.800317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:50.953583
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4319      Doc: 20         Filed: 03/30/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4319

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MARKEITH JAMAR NORMAN,

                            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. (1:21-cr-00273-NCT-1)

        Submitted: February 23, 2023                                      Decided: March 30, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Michael E. Archenbronn, MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN, Winston-Salem,
        North Carolina, for Appellant. Nicole Royer DuPre, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4319      Doc: 20          Filed: 03/30/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Markeith Jamar Norman pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        aiding and assisting in the preparation and presentation of false tax returns, in violation of

        26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). The district court sentenced Norman to 27 months of imprisonment.

        On appeal, Norman’s counsel 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

        reasonableness of Norman’s sentence. Norman has not filed a pro se supplemental brief

        despite being notified of his right to do so. The Government did not file a brief. Finding

        no error, we affirm.

               We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-

        discretion standard.” United States v. Williams, 5 F.4th 500, 505 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

        142 S. Ct. 625 (2021). “[W]e must first ensure that the district court committed no

        significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the [Sentencing] Guidelines

        range, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain

        the chosen sentence.”     Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).       “If the sentence is

        procedurally sound, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking

        into account the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. McCain, 974 F.3d 506,

        515 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Any sentence that is within or

        below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.

        Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable

        when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756

        F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4319         Doc: 20      Filed: 03/30/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

              During the sentencing hearing, the district court accurately calculated Norman’s

        advisory Guidelines range, accorded Norman an opportunity to argue for an appropriate

        sentence, addressed Norman’s arguments, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and adequately

        explained the chosen sentence.       Accordingly, Norman’s sentence is procedurally

        reasonable. We further conclude that Norman has failed to rebut the presumption that his

        within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.

              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 Norman, in writing, of the right to petition the

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

              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