US v. Preston Pott

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cr-00052-RJC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999939774].. [16-4123]

Appeal: 16-4123

Doc: 36

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4123

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
PRESTON POTTS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cr-00052-RJC-1)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

October 3, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert C. Carpenter, ADAMS, HENDON, CARSON, CROW AND SAENGER,
P.A., Asheville, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-4123

Doc: 36

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Preston Potts pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute oxycodone, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012).
sentenced

to

121

months’

imprisonment.

His

Potts was

counsel

filed

a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
raising for the court’s consideration whether the district court
made a procedural error in applying a sentencing enhancement for
Potts’

role

in

the

supplemental brief.

offense.

Potts

did

not

file

a

pro

The Government did not file a brief.

se

After

a careful review of the record, we affirm.
We

review

a

sentence’s

procedural

and

reasonableness for an abuse of discretion.

United States v.

Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 527-28 (4th Cir. 2014).
for

procedural

errors

such

as

improper

substantive

We first review

calculation

of

the

Sentencing Guidelines range, failure to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)

(2012)

based

clearly

on

sentencing
erroneous

explain the sentence.
(2007).

factors,
facts,

selection
or

failure

of

a

to

sentence

adequately

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

Absent any procedural error, we examine the substantive

reasonableness
circumstances.”
calculated

of

the

Id.

sentence

Sentences

Guidelines

under
within

range

are
2

“the
or

totality
below

presumed

a

of

the

properly

substantively

Appeal: 16-4123

Doc: 36

reasonable,

Filed: 10/03/2016

and

this

Pg: 3 of 4

“presumption

can

only

be

rebutted

by

showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”
756

F.3d

295,

306

(4th

United States v. Louthian,

Cir.

2014).

We

within-Guidelines sentence for abuse of discretion.

review

a

See United

States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576-77 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating
standard of review).
We conclude that the district court did not err in applying
the

U.S.

Sentencing

enhancement.

Guidelines

Manual

§

3B1.1(a)

(2014)

Further, we conclude that the district court’s

within-Guidelines

sentence

is

both

procedurally

and

substantively reasonable and not an abuse of discretion.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

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

We therefore affirm Potts’ conviction and sentence.

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

If Potts requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

and

legal

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Potts.
facts

this

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

3

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 16-4123

Doc: 36

materials

before

Filed: 10/03/2016

this

court

Pg: 4 of 4

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4