US v. Stevie Prince, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00397-NCT-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999862805]. [15-4680]

Appeal: 15-4680

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4680

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVIE PRINCE, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00397-NCT-1)

Submitted:

May 31, 2016

Decided:

June 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Kyle D. Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4680

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Stevie Prince, Jr., appeals his conviction and 120-month
sentence after pleading guilty to possession of firearms by a
convicted

felon,

in

924(a)(2) (2012).

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1),

Prince’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether
Prince’s sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Prince has been notified of his right to file a pro se brief,
but he has not filed one.
We

review

substantive

Prince’s

sentence

reasonableness

discretion standard.”
(2007).

We affirm.
for

“under

a

both

procedural

deferential

and

abuse-of-

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41

We must ensure that the district court committed no

significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the
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.

We presume that a sentence within a properly calculated

Sentencing Guidelines 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

2

Appeal: 15-4680

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/22/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”
After

reviewing

transcript,

we

the

conclude

Id.

presentence
that

report

Prince’s

and

sentencing

sentence

procedurally and substantively reasonable.

is

both

The district court

properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, discussed the
applicable

§ 3553(a)

factors,

and

sufficiently

explained

reasons for imposing the sentence Prince received.
Prince

has

presumption

not
of

made

the

showing

reasonableness

necessary

accorded

his

its

In addition,

to

rebut

the

within-Guidelines

sentence.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We

therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Prince, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Prince 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 Prince.

3

Appeal: 15-4680

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/22/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

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