US v. Stoney Shew

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00053-RLV-DCK-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999791373].. [15-4233]

Appeal: 15-4233

Doc: 70

Filed: 04/08/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4233

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STONEY SHEW,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00053-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted:

March 30, 2016

Decided:

April 8, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Denzil H. Forrester, THE LAW OFFICES OF DENZIL H. FORRESTER,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jill Westmoreland
Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4233

Doc: 70

Filed: 04/08/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Stoney Shew pleaded guilty, without a written agreement, to
conspiracy to distribute, possess with intent to distribute, and
manufacture

methamphetamine,

in

violation

of

21

U.S.C.

§§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2012), and possession and distribution of
pseudoephedrine

for

methamphetamine,
841(c)(2)

in

(2012).

the

purpose

violation
The

of

district

of

21

manufacturing

U.S.C.

court

§§ 802(34)(K),

sentenced

Shew

to

135

months’ imprisonment, a downward variance from the 360-month-tolife Sentencing Guidelines range.

On appeal, Shew contends that

the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the downward
variance should have been greater.
We

review

Shew’s

sentence

We affirm.
for

reasonableness

under

an

abuse-of-discretion standard.

United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d

519, 527-28 (4th Cir. 2014).

Because Shew raises no procedural

error, we limit our review to the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence under “the totality of the circumstances.”
(internal
within

quotation

or

below

presumptively
can

only

be

unreasonable

Cir.)

a

omitted).

“Any

properly

calculated

[substantively]

reasonable.

rebutted
when

[(2012)] factors.”
(4th

marks

by

measured

showing
against

sentence

that
the

a

the

18

that

is

range

Guidelines
Such

Id.

is

presumption
sentence

U.S.C.

is

§ 3553(a)

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306

(citation

omitted),

cert.
2

denied,

135

S.

Ct.

421

Appeal: 15-4233

Doc: 70

(2014).

We

Filed: 04/08/2016

conclude

that

Pg: 3 of 3

Shew

has

failed

to

rebut

the

presumption that his below-Guidelines sentence is substantively
reasonable.
Accordingly,
judgment.
legal
before

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

criminal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3