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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [14-4939]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
TROUN VANRECKUS BROCK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, District
January 28, 2016
Before DUNCAN and
April 6, 2016
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne D. Inge, LAW OFFICE OF WAYNE D. INGE, Roanoke, Virginia,
Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States
Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Troun Vanreckus Brock appeals the district court’s judgment
conspiracy to distribute Schedule II controlled substances, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C) (2012).
district court erroneously denied Brock’s motion for judgment of
Brock’s sentence was reasonable.
Brock has been notified of his
right to file a pro se brief, but he has not filed one.
First, we find no error in the district court’s denial of
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.”
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
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
circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
We presume that a sentence within a
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.”
procedurally and substantively reasonable.
The district court
properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, discussed the
reasons for imposing the sentence Brock received.
Pg: 4 of 4
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Brock, in
United States for further review.
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?