Court Opinion

ID: 9411514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 21:01:14.13009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.181661
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4120      Doc: 20         Filed: 07/25/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4120

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BRETT LEONZA FREEMAN,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cr-00033-GMG-RWT-1)

        Submitted: July 20, 2023                                          Decided: July 25, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Kristen M. Leddy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
        FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Lara Kay
        Omps-Botteicher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West
        Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4120       Doc: 20        Filed: 07/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

                  Brett Leonza Freeman pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine hydrochloride and

        cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846. The district court

        sentenced Freeman to 48 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief

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

        issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court imposed an unreasonable

        sentence by failing to adequately consider the policies issued by the U.S. Department of

        Justice addressing the crack-to-powder cocaine disparity in sentencing. Freeman has not

        filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the Government has elected not to file a brief. 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)

        factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If there are no

        procedural errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,

        evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “Any sentence that is within or

        below a properly calculated [Sentencing] Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable,”

        and this “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4120      Doc: 20         Filed: 07/25/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

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

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

               Here, the district court correctly calculated Freeman’s advisory Guidelines range,

        heard argument from counsel, provided Freeman an opportunity to allocute, considered the

        § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and explained its reasons for imposing the chosen sentence.

        The court acknowledged Freeman’s argument regarding the crack-to-powder cocaine

        sentencing disparity and ultimately determined that this issue—in combination with the

        other sentencing factors—warranted a downward variant sentence, albeit not as great a

        variance as Freeman requested. Consequently, we conclude that the court committed no

        procedural error in its determination of Freeman’s sentence. Finally, because Freeman has

        not demonstrated that his term of imprisonment “is unreasonable when measured against

        the . . . § 3553(a) factors,” he has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness

        accorded his below-Guidelines sentence. Id. We therefore conclude that Freeman’s

        sentence is also 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 Freeman, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Freeman 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 Freeman. We dispense with oral argument because the

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4120      Doc: 20         Filed: 07/25/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                    4