Court Opinion

ID: 9412222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 21:01:45.2886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:32.105445
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4715      Doc: 20         Filed: 07/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4715

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ALAN CLARK TOLLIVER,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (3:21-cr-00033-TSK-RWT-10)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                          Decided: July 27, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Charles T. Berry, CHARLES T. BERRY, ESQUIRE, Kingmont, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4715      Doc: 20          Filed: 07/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Alan Clark Tolliver pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in

        violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Tolliver to 74

        months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. On appeal, Tolliver’s 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 Tolliver’s sentence is reasonable and

        whether his counsel in the district court rendered ineffective assistance. Although notified

        of his right to do so, Tolliver has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government

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

               We review Tolliver’s sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-

        discretion standard. United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020). In

        conducting this review, we must first ensure that the sentence is procedurally reasonable,

        “consider[ing] whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory

        [Sentencing G]uidelines 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. (internal quotation marks omitted). We then review the substantive

        reasonableness of the sentence; that is, “we examine the totality of the circumstances to see

        whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose

        satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 176

        (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated

        Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.” United States v. Louthian,

        756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4715      Doc: 20           Filed: 07/27/2023   Pg: 3 of 4

        that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”

        Id.

               Our review of the record reveals that the district court accurately calculated

        Tolliver’s advisory Guidelines range, listened to Tolliver’s allocution, considered the

        parties’ arguments and the § 3553(a) factors, and adequately explained the chosen

        sentence.   Accordingly, Tolliver’s sentence is procedurally reasonable.        We further

        conclude that Tolliver’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of

        the totality of the circumstances.

               With respect to Tolliver’s claim that his counsel performed deficiently in

        negotiating the plea agreement, we do not consider ineffective assistance of counsel claims

        on direct appeal “[u]nless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of

        the record.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507 (4th Cir. 2016). The present record

        does not conclusively demonstrate that counsel’s performance was ineffective.

        Accordingly, Tolliver’s claim is not cognizable on direct appeal.

               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 Tolliver, in writing, of the right to petition the

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

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4715      Doc: 20         Filed: 07/27/2023     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