US v. Stephone Brian Scale


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cr-00295-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000176538]. [17-4233]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-4233 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/19/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-4233 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEPHONE BRIAN SCALES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:16-cr-00295-WO-1) Submitted: October 17, 2017 Decided: October 19, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant U.S. Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-4233 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/19/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Stephone Brian Scales appeals the district court’s judgment entered pursuant to his guilty plea to distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012). Scales’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Scales’ sentence is unreasonable. Scales was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not filed one. We affirm. We review Scales’ sentence for both procedural and substantive reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We must ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range. Id. at 51. If there is no significant procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.” Id. We presume that a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). A defendant can rebut this presumption only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. After reviewing the presentence report and sentencing transcript, we conclude that Scales’ sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the sentence Scales received. Further, Scales has not made the showing 2 Appeal: 17-4233 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/19/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 necessary to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Scales, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Scales 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 Scales. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 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?