Court Opinion

ID: 9644596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:00:32.225015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:33.057810
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4682      Doc: 34         Filed: 08/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4682

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JOSEPH E. STASNEY, a/k/a Buddy Stasney,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00024-KDB-DSC-1)

        Submitted: April 28, 2023                                         Decided: August 21, 2023

        Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Chiege Ojugo Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
        Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4682      Doc: 34         Filed: 08/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Joseph E. Stasney pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to wire fraud,

        in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.      The district court sentenced him to 41 months’

        imprisonment and one year of supervised release, and the court ordered restitution under

        the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A, 3664(f).             On appeal,

        Stasney’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

        questioning whether Stasney’s sentence is reasonable. Although notified of his right to do

        so, Stasney did not file a pro se supplemental brief. The Government declined to file a

        response brief. We affirm.

               We review a criminal “sentence[]—whether inside, just outside, or significantly

        outside the [Sentencing] Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

        standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We “must first ensure that the

        district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or

        improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . 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.” Id. at 51. If there is no significant procedural

        error, then we consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the

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

        “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is

        presumptively reasonable,” United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 230 (4th Cir. 2016)

        (internal quotation marks omitted), and Stasney bears the burden of rebutting that

        presumption “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4682      Doc: 34          Filed: 08/21/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014);

        see White, 810 F.3d at 230.

               Our review of the record indicates that the district court did not abuse its discretion

        in imposing a within-Guidelines-range sentence of 41 months’ imprisonment. The court

        listened to the parties’ arguments and Stasney’s allocution. In imposing the sentence, the

        court considered the § 3553(a) factors and declined to vary or depart below the Guidelines

        range because it found that the Bureau of Prisons could adequately treat Stasney’s medical

        conditions and that a within-Guidelines sentence promoted respect for the law, reflected

        the seriousness of the offense, and would serve to deter others. Accordingly, the record

        reveals no procedural error, and Stasney fails to rebut the presumption that his 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 Stasney, in writing, of the right to petition the

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

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4682         Doc: 34    Filed: 08/21/2023   Pg: 4 of 4

              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

                                                  4