Opinion
22-4279
02-21-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRIAN TERREL CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.
W. Michael Dowling, THE DOWLING FIRM PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: February 16, 2023.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:20-cr-00114-FL-1)
ON BRIEF:
W. Michael Dowling, THE DOWLING FIRM PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brian Terrel Campbell pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924. The district court sentenced Campbell to 120 months' imprisonment. Campbell appeals. Campbell's attorney 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 the reasonableness of the sentence. Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Campbell has not filed a brief. We affirm.
We review Campbell's sentence for reasonableness, applying "a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We first ensure that the court "committed no significant procedural error," such as improperly calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, or inadequately explaining the sentence. United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 170 (4th Cir. 2014). If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, we also review its substantive reasonableness under "the totality of the circumstances." Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed must be "sufficient, but not greater than necessary," to satisfy the goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We presume that a within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). Campbell bears the burden to rebut this presumption "by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors." Id.
Our review of the record convinces us that Campbell's sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the applicable advisory Guidelines range, considered the parties' sentencing arguments, and adequately explained its reasons for the sentence imposed. Campbell fails to rebut the presumption of substantive reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. Id.
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 Campbell, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Campbell 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 Campbell. 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