US v. Troun Brock

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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