US v. Daniel Pulley
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:15-cr-00372-TMC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . [16-4389]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
January 26, 2017
February 7, 2017
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Daniel Pulley pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to
distribution of cocaine base.
to 151 months’ imprisonment.
The district court sentenced him
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.
Berry, 814 F.3d 192, 194-95 (4th Cir. 2016).
whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s
opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence based on
explained the selected sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51.
will we consider its substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into
account the totality of the circumstances.”
Id. at 51.
Pg: 3 of 3
Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors.”
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295,
306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
procedural sentencing errors, and we conclude that Pulley has
not rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence
is substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have
district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel
inform Pulley, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
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.
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Pulley.
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?