Court Opinion

ID: 9778322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:00:37.978897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:06.937411
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4197      Doc: 18         Filed: 08/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4197

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RICHARD ISIAH PIERCE,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:22-cr-00014-TDS-1)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                        Decided: August 28, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Tiffany T. McGregor, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
        Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Margaret McCall Reece, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4197      Doc: 18         Filed: 08/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Richard Isiah Pierce appeals the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty

        plea, without a written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in

        violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2018). * Pierce’s counsel has filed a brief

        pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no

        meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Pierce’s sentence, which falls

        within his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, is reasonable. Although he was informed

        of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Pierce has not done so. The Government

        has declined to file a response brief. Finding no error, we affirm.

               We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

        Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.

        Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “First,

        we ‘ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as 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.’” United

        States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552

               *
                Section 924(a)(2) was amended and no longer provides the penalty for § 922(g)
        convictions; the new penalty provision in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8) sets forth a statutory
        maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for a § 922(g) offense. See Bipartisan Safer
        Communities Act, Pub. L. No. 117-159, § 12004(c), 136 Stat. 1313, 1329 (2022). The
        15-year statutory maximum does not apply in this case, however, because Pierce’s offense
        was committed before the June 25, 2022, amendment to the statute.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4197         Doc: 18       Filed: 08/28/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). “If the sentence ‘is procedurally sound, [we] should then consider the

        substantive reasonableness of the sentence,’ taking into account the totality of the

        circumstances.” United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting

        Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Any sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is

        presumptively reasonable, and the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the

        sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. United States v.

        White, 810 F.3d 212, 230 (4th Cir. 2016).

               We conclude that Pierce’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.

        The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range, to which Pierce did not object,

        and thoroughly explained why it imposed Pierce’s 42-month custodial sentence and term

        of supervised release.      In addition, Pierce fails to overcome the presumption of

        reasonableness that we afford his within-Guidelines sentence. We have reviewed the

        record in accordance with Anders and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We

        therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform

        Pierce, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

        review. If Pierce 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 Pierce.

               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