US v. Derrick Owen

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00019-FDW-5 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999546286].. [14-4597]

Appeal: 14-4597

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/16/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4597

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DERRICK OWENS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:13-cr-00019-FDW-5)

Submitted:

March 12, 2015

Decided:

March 16, 2015

Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric A. Bach, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4597

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/16/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Derrick
judgment

Owens

sentencing

appeals
him

to

the

district

thirty

court’s

months’

criminal

imprisonment

for

conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute one or more
controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1).
846 (2012).

In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), Owens’s counsel filed a brief certifying that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence.

Although

advised of his right to do so, Owens did not file a pro se
supplemental brief.
We

review

We affirm.

Owens’s

sentence

abuse-of-discretion standard.
38, 51 (2007).
error,”

for

reasonableness

using

an

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

We must first review for “significant procedural

including

“improperly

calculating[]

the

[Sentencing]

Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a)

[(2012)]

factors,

selecting

a

sentence

based

on

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

If we find no procedural error, we examine the substantive
reasonableness
circumstances.”

of

the

sentence

under

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

“the

totality

of

the

The sentence imposed

must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to satisfy
the goals of sentencing.

See § 3553(a).
2

We presume on appeal

Appeal: 14-4597

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/16/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

that a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is
reasonable.
(4th

Cir.

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379
2006)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

The

appellant bears the burden to rebut the presumption by showing
“that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the
§ 3553(a) factors.”

Id.

Owens received an adequate, individualized explanation of
his properly calculated, within-Guidelines sentence.

Our review

of the record leads us to conclude that his sentence was neither
procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This

We

court

requires that counsel inform Owens, in writing, of his right to
petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If he requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may

move

in

representation.

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Owens.

3

Appeal: 14-4597

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/16/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

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