United States v. Kevin Stanfield, Jr. , 547 F. App'x 194 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4450
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN LAMONT STANFIELD, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00256-RJC-7)
Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence W. Hewitt, GUTHRIE, DAVIS, HENDERSON & STATON, PLLC,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Lamont Stanfield, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to
a plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and to possess
with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and conspiracy to commit
money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2012).
The district court downwardly varied from the fifty-seven to
seventy-one-month Guidelines range, sentencing Stanfield to
concurrent forty-two-month prison terms. Stanfield timely
appealed.
Counsel has filed a brief, pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether
Stanfield’s sentence is greater than necessary to comply with
the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). Stanfield was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
did not file one. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review the district court’s sentence, “whether
inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines
range[,] . . . under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This
standard of review involves two steps; under the first, we
examine the sentence for significant procedural errors, and
under the second, we review the substance of the sentence.
2
United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007)
(analyzing Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51). Significant procedural
errors include “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 — including an explanation for any
deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
If there are no significant procedural errors, we then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id.
If the sentence is within or below the properly calculated
Guidelines range, this Court applies a presumption on appeal
that the sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v.
Yooho Weon, 722 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013). Such a
presumption is rebutted only if the defendant shows “that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a)
factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379
(4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have
reviewed the record and conclude that Stanfield’s below-
Guidelines sentence is both procedurally and substantively
reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
3
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Stanfield, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Stanfield 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 Stanfield. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4