US v. Patrick Ganim

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00019-IMK-MJA-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999828761]. [15-4673]

Appeal: 15-4673

Doc: 23

Filed: 05/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4673

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PATRICK W. GANIM,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00019-IMK-MJA-1)

Submitted:

May 18, 2016

Decided:

May 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Kristen M. Leddy, Research
and Writing Specialist, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Sarah W. Montoro,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4673

Doc: 23

Filed: 05/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Patrick W. Ganim pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to interstate travel with intent to engage in illicit
sexual conduct, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)(2012), and was sentenced to
a within-Guidelines term of 130 months’ imprisonment.
a timely appeal.

He noted

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding that there are no
meritorious

grounds

for

appeal,

reasonableness of Ganim’s sentence.

but

questioning

the

Although informed of his

right to do so, Ganim has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Finding no error, we affirm.
We review Ganim’s sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse-of-discretion standard.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 46 (2007). Our review requires consideration of both the
procedural

and

substantive

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
court

properly

reasonableness

of

the

sentence.

We first assess whether the district

calculated

the

advisory

Sentencing

Guidelines

range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012), analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence.

Gall, 552 U.S. at

49–51. If we find no procedural error, we review the sentence
for substantive reasonableness, “examin[ing] the totality of the
circumstances[.]”

United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d

212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).

“Any sentence that is within or below
2

Appeal: 15-4673

a

Doc: 23

properly

Filed: 05/20/2016

calculated

Pg: 3 of 4

Guidelines

range

is

presumptively

[substantively] reasonable” and “[s]uch a presumption can only
be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors.”

United States v.

Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S.
___, 135 S.Ct. 421 (2014).
We

conclude

substantively
calculated

that

Ganim’s

reasonable.

Ganim’s

sentence

The

Guidelines

is

district
range,

procedurally
court

listened

and

correctly

to

counsel’s

arguments, and adequately explained its reasons for imposing the
130–month sentence.

Further, Ganim offers nothing to rebut the

presumption of substantive reasonableness this court affords his
within-Guidelines

sentence.

We

thus

conclude

that

Ganim’s

sentence is reasonable.
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 counsel to inform Ganim, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review. If Ganim requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may

move

in

this

court

to

withdraw

from

representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
on Ganim.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
3

Appeal: 15-4673

Doc: 23

Filed: 05/20/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4