US v. Troun Brock


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999702305-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00036-JPJ-PMS-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999789654].. [14-4939]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-4939 Doc: 48 Filed: 04/06/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4939 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TROUN VANRECKUS BROCK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00036-JPJ-PMS-3) Submitted: January 28, 2016 Before DUNCAN and Circuit Judge. KEENAN, Decided: Circuit Judges, and April 6, 2016 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne D. Inge, LAW OFFICE OF WAYNE D. INGE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 14-4939 Doc: 48 Filed: 04/06/2016 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Troun Vanreckus Brock appeals the district court’s judgment imposing a 151-month sentence following his conviction for conspiracy to distribute Schedule II controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C) (2012). Brock’s counsel has California, 386 U.S. meritorious issues filed 738 for a brief (1967), appeal, pursuant stating but to that Anders there questioning are whether v. no the district court erroneously denied Brock’s motion for judgment of acquittal based on sufficiency of Brock’s sentence was reasonable. the evidence and whether Brock has been notified of his right to file a pro se brief, but he has not filed one. We affirm. First, we find no error in the district court’s denial of Brock’s motion challenging burden.” 2007). the for judgment sufficiency of of acquittal. the evidence “A faces defendant a heavy United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. “A jury’s verdict must be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record to support it.” Id. at 244. Evidence is “substantial” if, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, “there is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 245. Because the record 2 before us contains ample Appeal: 14-4939 Doc: 48 Filed: 04/06/2016 Pg: 3 of 4 evidence of Brock’s guilt, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying his motion. We next turn to Brock’s sentence, which we review for both procedural and substantive reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” 38, 41 (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. We must ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range. Id. at 51. If there is no significant procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.” Id. properly Guidelines calculated We presume that a sentence within a range is reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). A defendant can rebut this presumption only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” After transcript, reviewing we the conclude presentence that Id. report Brock’s procedurally and substantively reasonable. and sentence sentencing is both The district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, discussed the applicable § 3553(a) factors, and thoroughly explained reasons for imposing the sentence Brock received. Brock has not made the showing 3 necessary to its In addition, rebut the Appeal: 14-4939 Doc: 48 presumption Filed: 04/06/2016 of reasonableness Pg: 4 of 4 accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. deny We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. Brock’s motion for copy of electronically We recorded transcript. This court requires that counsel inform Brock, in writing, the of right to petition United States for further review. the Supreme Court of the If Brock 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 Brock. 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?