United States v. Marcus Curry , 605 F. App'x 207 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4743
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS MAYHEW CURRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00282-JAB-1)
Submitted: May 29, 2015 Decided: June 4, 2015
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Mayhew Curry appeals the 500-month sentence imposed
by the district court following our remand for resentencing on
eight drug and firearm convictions. On appeal, counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal
but questioning whether Curry’s sentence is substantively
reasonable. Although notified of his right to do so, Curry has
not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.
When reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, we apply “an
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). We first examine the sentence for “significant
procedural error.” Id. If there is none, we “then consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence . . . , tak[ing] into
account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. We presume on
appeal that a sentence within the Sentencing Guidelines range
established by the district court is substantively reasonable.
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). An appellant can rebut that
presumption only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors.”
Id.
Curry challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence. We conclude that he has failed to rebut the
2
presumption of reasonableness accorded to his within-Guidelines
sentence on the counts to which a mandatory consecutive sentence
did not apply. ∗ As indicated by the district court’s statements
at the resentencing hearing, the court found that the totality
of the circumstances warranted concurrent sentences of 140
months — the bottom of the Guidelines range applicable to his
convictions under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (C),
856(a)(1), (b) (2012) — but did not warrant a downward variance.
Such a determination is not an abuse of discretion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s second amended judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Curry, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Curry 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 Curry.
∗
The district court sentenced Curry to the statutory
minimum consecutive sentences on his two convictions under 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012); he does not challenge those sentences on
appeal.
3
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
4