US v. Daniel Pulley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:15-cr-00372-TMC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000018491]. [16-4389]

Appeal: 16-4389

Doc: 20

Filed: 02/07/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4389

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DANIEL PULLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:15-cr-00372-TMC-1)

Submitted:

January 26, 2017

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

NIEMEYER

February 7, 2017

and

KING,

Circuit

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4389

Doc: 20

Filed: 02/07/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Daniel Pulley pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to
possession

with

intent

to

distribution of cocaine base.
to 151 months’ imprisonment.

distribute

cocaine

base

and

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
Pulley’s

sentence

is

reasonable.

Pulley

was

advised

of

his

right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

We

affirm.
We

review

a

sentence

for

procedural

and

substantive

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

a

sentence

is

procedurally

In determining

reasonable,

we

consider

whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s
advisory

Sentencing

Guidelines

range,

gave

the

parties

an

opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence based on
facts

that

were

not

clearly

explained the selected sentence.
after

determining

that

a

erroneous,

and

sufficiently

Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51.

sentence

is

procedurally

Only

reasonable

will we consider its substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into
account the totality of the circumstances.”
2

Id. at 51.

“Any

Appeal: 16-4389

Doc: 20

sentence

Filed: 02/07/2017

that

Guidelines

is

range

within

is

Pg: 3 of 3

or

below

presumptively

a

properly

calculated

[substantively]

reasonable.

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).
Our

review

of

the

sentencing

transcript

reveals

no

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

reviewed

in

the

meritorious

entire
grounds

record
for

this

appeal.

district court’s judgment.

case
We

and

have

therefore

found

affirm

no
the

This court requires that counsel

inform Pulley, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If

Pulley

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 Pulley.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
3