US v. Reginald Reid

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cr-00106-CMC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998760473].. [11-4048]

Appeal: 11-4048

Document: 58

Date Filed: 01/09/2012

Page: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4048

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
REGINALD REID, a/k/a Reginald Raquan Reid,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00106-CMC-1)

Submitted:

December 9, 2011

Decided:

January 9, 2012

Before DAVIS, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Anne
Hunter Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4048

Document: 58

Date Filed: 01/09/2012

Page: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
A federal jury convicted Reginald Reid of two counts
of falsely representing a social security number to be his to
obtain

something

of

value,

in

violation

§ 408(a)(7)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011).

of

42

U.S.C.A.

The district court

sentenced Reid to a total of twenty-four months of imprisonment
and

he

now

pursuant

appeals.

to

Anders

Appellate
v.

counsel

California,

has

386

filed

U.S.

738

a

brief

(1967),

questioning whether the district court erred in denying Reid’s
motion

for

advisory

a

judgment

Guidelines

supplemental

briefs

of

range.
raising

acquittal
Reid

and
has

additional

in

calculating

also

filed

the
se

Finding

issues. *

pro

no

error, we affirm.
Counsel

first

questions

whether

the

district

court

erred in denying Reid’s motion for a judgment of acquittal.

We

review a district court’s decision to deny a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29
motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo.
Smith,

451

challenging

F.3d
the

209,

216

sufficiency

(4th
of

Cir.
the

United States v.

2006).

evidence

A
faces

defendant
a

heavy

burden.

United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.

1997).

The verdict of a jury must be sustained “if, viewing the

*

We have considered the issues raised in Reid’s pro se
briefs and conclude that they lack merit.

2

Appeal: 11-4048

Document: 58

Date Filed: 01/09/2012

Page: 3 of 5

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the
verdict is supported by ‘substantial evidence.’”
F.3d

at

216

“evidence

that

(citations
a

omitted).

reasonable

Substantial

finder

of

fact

Smith, 451
evidence

could

accept

is
as

adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Id. (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted). “Reversal for insufficient evidence is
reserved for the rare case where the prosecution’s failure is
clear.”

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
To convict Reid of the offenses, the Government had to

prove that Reid “(1) falsely represented a number to be [his]
social security number (2) with the intent to deceive another
person (3) for the purpose of obtaining something of value.”
United States v. Sparks, 67 F.3d 1145, 1152 (4th Cir. 1995)
(citation omitted).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and

conclude that the Government provided substantial evidence of
Reid’s guilt of the offenses and the district court did not
therefore

err

in

denying

Reid’s

motion

for

a

judgment

whether

the

district

of

acquittal.
Counsel

next

questions

court

erred in calculating the criminal history category applicable to
Reid under the advisory Guidelines.

We review a sentence for

reasonableness,

of

applying

an

abuse

discretion

standard.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United
3

Appeal: 11-4048

Document: 58

Date Filed: 01/09/2012

Page: 4 of 5

States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
130

S.

Ct.

290

(2009).

In

so

doing,

we

first

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
[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence
based

on

clearly

erroneous

facts,

explain the chosen sentence.”

or

failing

to

adequately

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

Finally,

we then “consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed.”

Id.

We will presume on appeal that a sentence within

a properly calculated advisory Guidelines range is reasonable.
United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding
presumption of reasonableness for within—Guidelines sentence).
Moreover,
calculations

under

in

reviewing

the

Guidelines,

the
“we

district
review

the

court’s
district

court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for
clear error.”

United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th

Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation
omitted).

We will “find clear error only if, on the entire

evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed.”

Id. at 631 (internal quotation

marks

We

court

and

citation

properly

omitted).

calculated

the
4

conclude
advisory

that

the

Guidelines

district
range.

Appeal: 11-4048

Document: 58

Date Filed: 01/09/2012

Page: 5 of 5

Moreover, the court considered the advisory Guidelines range,
the § 3553(a) factors, the parties’ arguments, and adequately
explained the chosen sentence.
F.3d

325,

330

(4th

Cir.

See United States v. Carter, 564

2009)

(district

court

must

conduct

individualized assessment based on the particular facts of each
case, whether sentence is above, below, or within the guidelines
range).
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

writing,

of

United

court

the

States

requires

right

for

to

further

that

counsel

petition

the

review.

If

inform

Supreme
Reid

Reid,

Court

requests

of

in
the

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 Reid.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

the

court

are
and

argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5