Court Opinion

ID: 4454041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-11-07 20:00:22.485239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:11.057719
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-4283

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

CHRISTOPHER L. ABERNATHY, a/k/a Christopher L. Abernathy, Jr.,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (7:18-cr-00928-DCC-1)

Submitted: November 1, 2019                                  Decided: November 7, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit
Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

          Christopher L. Abernathy pled guilty to one count of making counterfeit money, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471 (2012). Abernathy’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds

for appeal, but questioning whether Abernathy’s 24-month sentence is reasonable. We

affirm.

          We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-

discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails

consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at

51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court

properly calculated the defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an

opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

(2012) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If there are

no procedural errors, then we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,

evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. 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 the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

          We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not commit

procedural error, and Abernathy fails to rebut the presumption that his sentence is

substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated his Guidelines range and

                                              2
reasonably determined that a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range was

appropriate in this case.

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

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm Abernathy’s conviction and

sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Abernathy, in writing, of the right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Abernathy 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 Abernathy.

       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