US v. Anthony Reid

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cr-00212-DCN-2. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999976769]. [16-4318]

Appeal: 16-4318

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4318

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY REID,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:14-cr-00212-DCN-2)

Submitted:

November 22, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

November 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alicia
Vachira
Penn,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Sean Kittrell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4318

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Anthony

Reid

pled

guilty,

pursuant

to

a

written

plea

agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
and to distribute a kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012).
career

offender

to

The district court sentenced Reid as a

188

months’

imprisonment.

He

appeals.

Reid’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but generally questioning the
reasonableness

of

the

sentence.

Reid

has

filed

a

pro

se

supplemental brief in which he challenges his designation as a
career offender in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct.
2551 (2015).
We

We affirm.

review

a

defendant’s

abuse-of-discretion standard.”
38, 41 (2007).

sentence

“under

a

deferential

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

Under this standard, a sentence is reviewed for

both procedural and substantive reasonableness.

Id. at 51.

In

determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the
district

court

properly

calculated

the

defendant’s

advisory

Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to
argue

for

§ 3553(a)

an

appropriate

(2012)

selected sentence.
“significant

sentence,

factors,

and

Id. at 49-51.

procedural

error,”
2

considered

sufficiently

the

18

U.S.C.

explained

the

If a sentence is free of
then

we

review

it

for

Appeal: 16-4318

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality
of the circumstances.”

Id. at 51.

“Any sentence that is within

or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable.”

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th

Cir. 2014).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Reid’s
sentence

is

presumption
sentence.

procedurally
of

sound

reasonableness

and

he

fails

accorded

his

to

overcome

the

within-Guidelines

Moreover, Johnson has no application where, as here,

the designation of career offender is based on prior felony drug
convictions.
reasonable.

We

therefore

conclude

that

Reid’s

sentence

is

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the

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

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

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

If Reid 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 Reid.
facts

this

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

3

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 16-4318

Doc: 29

materials

before

Filed: 11/29/2016

this

court

Pg: 4 of 4

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4