United States v. Thomas Dale Sims, Jr. , 690 F. App'x 832 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-4769
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    THOMAS DALE SIMS, JR., a/k/a Thomas D. Sims, Jr.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
    at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cr-00030-GMG-RWT-1)
    Submitted: May 11, 2017                                           Decided: May 30, 2017
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kristen M. Leddy, Research & Writing Specialist, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
    PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Shawn Michael
    Adkins, Anna Zartler Krasinski, Assistant United States Attorneys, Martinsburg, West
    Virginia; William J. Ihlenfeld, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
    Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Dale Sims, Jr. pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after having
    sustained convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(9) (2012), pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government. The
    district court sentenced Sims to 15 months of imprisonment followed by 3 years of
    supervised release, and he now appeals. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), questioning whether the sentence is
    substantively reasonable. Sims was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
    brief, but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
    Initially, we conclude that we need not consider whether Sims’ appellate waiver
    precludes him from contesting his conviction or sentence on appeal. The Government
    has not sought enforcement of the waiver and we decline to enforce appellate waiver
    provisions sua sponte. See United States v. Brock, 
    211 F.3d 88
    , 90 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000).
    On appeal, counsel asserts that the sentence is greater than necessary to satisfy the
    statutory sentencing factors identified in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) (2012).
    We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
    standard. Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 41 (2007); see also United States v. White,
    
    810 F.3d 212
    , 229 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    136 S. Ct. 1833
     (2016). In so doing, we
    examine the sentence for “significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate (or
    improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory,
    failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous
    facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall, 
    552 U.S. at 51
    . We
    2
    then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. “Any sentence that is within
    or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” White,
    810 F.3d at 230 (internal quotation marks omitted).
    We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence is both
    procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the
    advisory Guidelines range and sufficiently explained the sentence. In addition, Sims’
    within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable and we conclude that Sims has
    not rebutted that presumption.
    We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of
    Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the
    judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Sims, in writing, of
    the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Sims
    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 Sims. 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-4769

Citation Numbers: 690 F. App'x 832

Filed Date: 5/30/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023