Court Opinion

ID: 9374408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 21:00:35.842599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:47.006733
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4279      Doc: 20         Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4279

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BRIAN TERREL CAMPBELL,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:20-cr-00114-FL-1)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                  Decided: February 21, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: W. Michael Dowling, THE DOWLING FIRM PLLC, Raleigh, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
        THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4279      Doc: 20         Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Brian Terrel Campbell pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

        violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924. The district court sentenced Campbell to 120

        months’ imprisonment. Campbell appeals. Campbell’s attorney 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 the reasonableness of the sentence. Although advised of his

        right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Campbell has not filed a brief. We affirm.

               We review Campbell’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-

        of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We first ensure that

        the court “committed no significant procedural error,” such as improperly calculating the

        Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, or

        inadequately explaining the sentence.      United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 170

        (4th Cir. 2014). If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, we also review its

        substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

        The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the

        goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We presume that a within-Guidelines sentence

        is substantively reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

        Campbell bears the burden to rebut this presumption “by showing that the sentence is

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

               Our review of the record convinces us that Campbell’s sentence is both procedurally

        and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the applicable advisory

        Guidelines range, considered the parties’ sentencing arguments, and adequately explained

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4279      Doc: 20         Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        its reasons for the sentence imposed.      Campbell fails to rebut the presumption of

        substantive reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. Id.

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

        found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

        This court requires that counsel inform Campbell, in writing, of the right to petition the

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