United States v. Markeith Norman ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4319 Doc: 20 Filed: 03/30/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4319
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARKEITH JAMAR NORMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:21-cr-00273-NCT-1)
Submitted: February 23, 2023 Decided: March 30, 2023
Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Michael E. Archenbronn, MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Nicole Royer DuPre, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4319 Doc: 20 Filed: 03/30/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Markeith Jamar Norman pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
aiding and assisting in the preparation and presentation of false tax returns, in violation of
26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). The district court sentenced Norman to 27 months of imprisonment.
On appeal, Norman’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the
reasonableness of Norman’s sentence. Norman has not filed a pro se supplemental brief
despite being notified of his right to do so. The Government did not file a brief. Finding
no error, we affirm.
We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard.” United States v. Williams, 5 F.4th 500, 505 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
142 S. Ct. 625 (2021). “[W]e must first ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the [Sentencing] Guidelines
range, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain
the chosen sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “If the sentence is
procedurally sound, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking
into account the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. McCain, 974 F.3d 506,
515 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Any sentence that is within or
below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.
Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4319 Doc: 20 Filed: 03/30/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
During the sentencing hearing, the district court accurately calculated Norman’s
advisory Guidelines range, accorded Norman an opportunity to argue for an appropriate
sentence, addressed Norman’s arguments, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and adequately
explained the chosen sentence. Accordingly, Norman’s sentence is procedurally
reasonable. We further conclude that Norman has failed to rebut the presumption that his
within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.
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 Norman, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Norman 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 Norman.
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