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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000018491]. [16-4389]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4389 Doc: 20 Filed: 02/07/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4389 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DANIEL PULLEY, Defendant - Appellant.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 Chief Judge, Decided: and NIEMEYER February 7, 2017 and KING, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?