United States v. Reginald Hunter , 546 F. App'x 172 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-4341
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    REGINALD SHANDRELL HUNTER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg.      Timothy M. Cain, District
    Judge. (7:12-cr-00301-TMC-1)
    Submitted:   October 29, 2013              Decided:   November 8, 2013
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
    South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Reginald Shandrell Hunter appeals his fifty-two-month
    sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in
    possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
    (2006).       Hunter’s     counsel       has    filed      a    brief       pursuant    to
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), concluding that there
    are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether
    the sentence is reasonable.             Hunter was notified of his right to
    file   a   supplemental     pro    se    brief,      but   he    has    not    done    so.
    Following careful review of the record, we affirm.
    Our review reveals that the district court followed
    all necessary procedural steps in sentencing Hunter, properly
    calculating       his   Guidelines      range,       considered        the    18    U.S.C.
    § 3553(a)     (2006)     factors     and       the    parties’     arguments,          and
    provided     an    individualized        assessment        based       on     the   facts
    presented.        See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007).
    Hunter’s below-Guidelines sentence, pursuant to the Government’s
    motion     for     a    downward     departure        based      upon        substantial
    assistance, is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, and
    Hunter has not met his burden to rebut this presumption.                               See
    United States v. Susi, 
    674 F.3d 278
    , 289 (4th Cir. 2012); United
    States v. Montes-Pineda, 
    445 F.3d 375
    , 379 (4th Cir. 2006).
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
    and have found no meritorious issues.                   We therefore affirm the
    2
    district court’s judgment.              This Court requires that counsel
    inform Hunter, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
    Court    of   the   United     States   for    further      review.      If   Hunter
    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 Hunter.
    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: 13-4341

Citation Numbers: 546 F. App'x 172

Judges: Keenan, King, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 11/8/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023