US v. Adrian Perkin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00053-RLV-DCK-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999960264]. [16-4093]

Appeal: 16-4093

Doc: 23

Filed: 11/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4093

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADRIAN DEMARCUS PERKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00053-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

November 2, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wm.
Grayson
Lambert,
MCGUIREWOODS
LLP,
Charlotte,
North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4093

Doc: 23

Filed: 11/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Adrian

Demarcus

Perkins

appeals

the

district

court’s

judgment after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession
with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

The district court

sentenced Perkins at the low end of his Guidelines range to 97
months in prison.

Perkins’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that
there

are

issue

of

no

meritorious

whether

his

grounds

sentence

for

is

appeal

but

substantively

raising

the

unreasonable.

Perkins was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but he has not done so.

We affirm.

We review the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)

(2012)

for

abuse

of

discretion.

United

States

v.

Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir. 2015) (citing Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).

We first consider whether the

district court committed a significant procedural error, such as
improperly calculating the Guidelines range.
51.

Gall, 552 U.S. at

If the sentence is procedurally reasonable, we consider its

substantive reasonableness, taking into account the totality of
the circumstances.

Id.

We presume that a sentence within or

below the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable.
States

v.

presumption

Susi,
can

674
only

F.3d
be

278,

rebutted
2

289
by

(4th

Cir.

showing

2012).

the

United
This

sentence

is

Appeal: 16-4093

Doc: 23

unreasonable

Filed: 11/02/2016

when

measured

Pg: 3 of 4

against

the

§ 3553(a)

factors.

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

conclude

that

Perkins’

sentence is reasonable, and the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing him at the low end of his Guidelines
range.

The district court considered the parties’ arguments and

made an individualized assessment based on the facts presented,
applied relevant § 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances
of

the

case

sentence.

and

the

defendant,

and

adequately

explained

its

We therefore give due deference to its “reasoned and

reasonable decision” that the § 3553(a) factors justified the
sentence.

See United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 367

(4th Cir. 2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
affirm the district court’s judgment.

Accordingly, we

This court requires that

counsel inform his or her client, in writing, of his or her
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further
filed,

review.
but

If

counsel

the

client

believes

requests

that

such

that
a

a

petition

petition

would

be
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 the client.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3

Appeal: 16-4093

Doc: 23

Filed: 11/02/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4